Health and Safety Attitudes and Behaviours in the New ... · To put attitudes to Health and Safety...

Health and Safety Attitudes and Behaviours in the New Zealand Workforce: A Survey of Workers and Employers

2014 BASELINE SURVEY

CONSTRUCTION REPORT

APRIL 2015

2

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 6 1.3 KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOURS AROUND RISK .......................................................................... 9 1.4 SEGMENTATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 1.5 COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 14 1.6 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WORKSAFE NZ ................................................................................................ 14 1.7 GEOGRAPHIC COMPARISON: CANTERBURY, AUCKLAND AND THE REST OF NEW ZEALAND .................................. 15

2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 18

2.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 OVERVIEW OF METHOD AND SAMPLE ..................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 WORKERS SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.4 EMPLOYERS’ SURVEY ................................................................................................................................................ 21 2.5 ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ...................................................................................................................................... 22 2.6 NOTES TO THE REPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 24 2.7 CONSTRUCTION SECTOR PROFILE ............................................................................................................................ 25

3 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT ........................................................................ 30

3.1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................................................................... 31 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY .............................................................................................................. 37 3.3 LEADERSHIP .............................................................................................................................................................. 40 3.4 RESPONSIVE DIALOGUE ............................................................................................................................................ 45 3.5 PARTICIPATORY STRUCTURES .................................................................................................................................. 53 3.6 LEVERS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY IN BUSINESSES ..................................................................................................... 61

4 KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................................ 65

4.1 PERCEPTIONS OF RISK .............................................................................................................................................. 65 4.2 KNOWLEDGE OF RISKS ............................................................................................................................................. 69 4.3 PERCEPTIONS OF RESOURCES, CAPABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE TO DEAL WITH RISK ............................................... 73 4.4 BEHAVIOUR AROUND RISK ....................................................................................................................................... 76 4.5 SNAPSHOT OF OCCURRENCE OF, AND INTERVENTION AROUND, INCIDENTS (SERIOUS HARM, NEAR MISSES, AND HAZARDS) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 84 4.6 UNDERSTANDING OF REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 96 4.7 WHAT INFLUENCES CHANGE IN BUSINESS SYSTEMS OR PRACTICES? ..................................................................... 99 4.8 ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRIC (OPM) ................................................................................................ 101

5 SEGMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 106

5.1 QUALITATIVE SEGMENTATION ............................................................................................................................... 106 5.2 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTATION ............................................................................................................................ 107 5.3 OVERVIEW OF SEGMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 108 5.4 THE WORKERS’ SEGMENTS – OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 109 5.5 PROFILE OF THE WORKERS’ SEGMENTS ................................................................................................................. 112 5.6 THE EMPLOYERS’ SEGMENTS – OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 117 5.7 PROFILE OF THE EMPLOYERS’ SEGMENTS .............................................................................................................. 119 5.8 TYING UP THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATIONS ..... 124 5.9 CONSTRUCTION SEGMENTATION .......................................................................................................................... 126

6 COMMUNICATION ................................................................................................................. 131

6.1 SOURCES OF ADVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 132 6.2 AWARENESS OF INFORMATION AND ADVERTISING: SECTOR SPECIFIC ................................................................. 137

3

7 PERCEPTIONS OF WORKSAFE NZ/MARITIME NZ ...................................................................... 143

7.1 AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF WORKSAFE NZ ............................................................................................... 144 7.2 CONTACT WITH WORKSAFE NZ .............................................................................................................................. 148 7.3 LIKELIHOOD OF INSPECTOR VISITING ..................................................................................................................... 150 7.4 WHERE WORKSAFE NZ SHOULD FOCUS TO IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY ..................................................... 151 7.5 WORKERS’ AND EMPLOYERS’ VIEWS ON WHAT WOULD MAKE THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE ................................. 154

8 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 159

9 APPENDIX I: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 164

10 APPENDIX II: OVERALL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 167

10.1 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 168 10.2 KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOURS AROUND OF RISK ................................................................. 170 10.3 SEGMENTATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 174 10.4 COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 175 10.5 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WORKSAFE NZ .............................................................................................. 175

11 APPENDIX III: WORKERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................. 178

12 APPENDIX IV: EMPLOYERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................... 199

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Nielsen would like to sincerely thank the large number of workers and employers who took the time to respond

to this survey.

We also acknowledge the work by Valerie Braithwaite, particularly the report (2011) Motivations, Attitudes,

Perceptions and Skills: Pathways to Safe Work. Report to Safe Work Australia.

Finally, we acknowledge Amick, Ben Dr et al. Institute for Work & Health Organizational Performance Metric

(IWH-OPM) Institute for Work & Health, Canada (4.0 International Public License:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

CITATION

When citing this report please use the following reference:

Nielsen. (2015). Health and safety attitudes and behaviours in the New Zealand workforce: A survey of workers and employers. 2014 baseline survey. Construction report. (A report to WorkSafe New Zealand). Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

4

SECTION 1:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 OVERVIEW

New Zealand has unacceptably high rates of workplace fatalities and serious harm injuries. The five sectors

where most harm is occurring are Agriculture, Construction, Forestry, Manufacturing and Commercial Fishing.

WorkSafe New Zealand (WorkSafe NZ) is the regulator responsible for the Agriculture, Construction, Forestry

and Manufacturing sectors while Maritime New Zealand (Maritime NZ) is the regulator for the maritime industry

which includes the Commercial Fishing sector.

WorkSafe NZ’s National Programmes seek to engage workers and employers in improving workplace Health and

Safety in New Zealand. Nielsen was commissioned to carry out baseline research that would a) inform the design

and development of National Programmes and b) provide a benchmark measure of attitudes and behaviours to

be tracked over time.

Qualitative research was conducted during March 2014 and this research provided in-depth information and

insights about attitudes and behaviours relating to Health and Safety in New Zealand and on how best to

communicate with the four high-risk sectors regulated by WorkSafe NZ. Maritime NZ became involved following

this qualitative stage and partnered with WorkSafe NZ to measure behaviours and attitudes towards Health and

Safety among the five high-risk sectors. A sixth sector labelled the ‘Other’ sector, consisting of workers and

employers from outside these five high-risk sectors, provided a ‘lower risk sector’ point of comparison.

This document reports on the quantitative stage of the research programme. A survey, using a self-completion

method, was undertaken with workers and employers. Structured questionnaires were designed for workers

and employers based on extensive consultation with WorkSafe NZ and Maritime NZ and on the insights provided

by the qualitative research.

International research was used to frame up the question areas included in the quantitative stage, particularly

the research carried out for Safe Work Australia by Valerie Braithwaite and reported in Motivations, Attitudes,

Perceptions and Skills: Pathways to Safe Work. Valerie Braithwaite is an Australian social scientist and has an

extensive career researching the ways in which individuals and groups engage with regulations imposed by

government and other authorities. In her report the dynamics that underlie co-operation and progress on

workplace Health and Safety were identified as:

1. Appreciation among workers of risk: workers being aware of safety issues and prioritising their own

safety above other considerations (with this being developed and nurtured within the work context).

2. Strong leadership: where bosses value safety for its own sake and prioritise it above everything else.

3. Responsive dialogue: where open and timely communication across all levels leads to identifying

problems and fixing them.

4. Participatory structures: formal avenues that are in place (e.g. regular meetings) that ensure safety is

not overlooked and that give workers a say.

6

5. Work safety authorities that are present and that are fair, seen to be doing their jobs and that are

respected and trusted.

The presence and effectiveness of these five factors impact on safe routines being institutionalised in the

workplace and also on the ability of individual workers to manage their own Health and Safety and that of

others.

A total of 3751 workers and 1903 employers completed the survey. The fieldwork took place between July and

September 2014.

In the Construction sector, a total of 619 workers and 364 employers completed the survey.

The following summary of results focuses on high-level indicators from the responses given by respondents in

the Construction sector. The cross-sector Executive Summary is contained in Appendix II to this report.

1.2 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT

To put attitudes to Health and Safety in context, we first looked at where Health and Safety sat in the priorities

of workers and employers. Aspects of workplace culture were also examined: specifically, who takes

responsibility for workers’ Health and Safety, what leadership and responsive dialogue is like in workplaces and

what formal structures are in place to support a Health and Safety culture.

37% WORKERS, 57% EMPLOYERS

IDENTIFIED HEALTH AND SAFETY AS ONE OF THEIR THREE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AT WORK/IN THEIR BUSINESS

Pride in doing a good job was a particularly important motivation for many workers across all sectors, but

strongest in Construction where 57% identified this as one of their main motivations. Achieving a good work/life

balance and staying healthy and safe at work achieved second-equal ranking in Construction.

Among employers, keeping workers healthy and safe was a very important motivation across all four WorkSafe

NZ high-risk sectors. In Construction, being a respected and trusted business and ensuring there was enough

work in the pipeline rounded out the top three considerations.

WORKERS

37%

EMPLOYERS

57%

7

It is important that there is a shared responsibility for Health and Safety among all who have an influence in this

area.


FELT THAT THE WORKERS THEMSELVES HAD A VERY BIG RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY WHILE AT WORK

Eighty-seven percent of Construction workers accepted that they themselves had a very big responsibility for

their own Health and Safety. Following the workers themselves, the immediate boss was felt to have a very big

responsibility as was the site manager, while the government’s role was seen as more supportive than leading

(some responsibility rather than a very big responsibility).

There is a strong relationship between good Health and Safety leadership in the workplace and workers’

attitudes and behaviours.


EXPRESSED THE ATTITUDE THAT THEIR IMMEDIATE BOSS / THEIR BUSINESS WAS DRIVEN BY A GENUINE CONCERN FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE WORKERS

Overall, workers and employers in Construction were positive about the leadership shown by their immediate

bosses/throughout their business. One area where leadership was weaker across Construction (and all sectors)

was in relation to praising or rewarding positive Health and Safety behaviour; just 45% of workers and 69% of

employers agreed that this occurred.

Responsive dialogue, where everyone in the business can discuss safety issues openly and there is a shared

determination to ensure the workplace is safe, also has a very strong influence on workplace Health and Safety.


FELT THAT THINGS THAT PUT HEALTH AND SAFETY AT RISK WERE DISCUSSED IN AN OPEN AND HELPFUL WAY (AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME)

Both workers and employers in Construction expressed generally favourable opinions about their workplaces or

businesses across a number of indicators. However, shared determination from the top down to improve safety,

was less evident to Construction workers than other aspects of responsive dialogue. In addition, one in five

(20%) Construction workers felt that their boss sometimes said nothing when he/she saw a worker taking a

shortcut or risk.

WORKERS

87%

EMPLOYERS

87%

WORKERS

76%

EMPLOYERS

89%

WORKERS

73%

EMPLOYERS

88%

8

Positive perceptions of responsive dialogue in a workplace should flow through to positive behaviours in terms

of consistent reporting of hazards, near misses and serious harm incidents.


BELIEVED THAT WORKERS REPORTED HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND ACCIDENTS TO BOSSES OR SUPERVISORS AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME

This result suggests that there is a significant level of under-reporting, particularly as just 21% of Construction

workers and 26% of employers believed this behaviour happened all the time.

Another very important factor leading to safer workplaces is having formal avenues in place (for example,

meetings, regular formal audits) to ensure safety issues are not overlooked.

Compared with other sectors, a lower proportion of Construction workers (13%) and employers (14%) indicated

that there were no formal Health and Safety structures in their workplaces; in other words, having at least one

formal structure in place was more common in the Construction sector than in some of the other sectors. The

most prevalent formal system in Construction was Health and Safety as an agenda item at regular team

meetings, with 57% of workers and 59% of employers indicating that this happened.

59% OF WORKERS HAD RECEIVED FORMAL HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHILE 58% OF EMPLOYERS HAD PROVIDED FORMAL TRAINING TO AT LEAST HALF

THEIR STAFF IN THIS TIMEFRAME

Formal Health and Safety training was more common in Construction than in the other sectors, with 59% of

workers having received formal training in the past 12 months and only 12% having never had formal Health and

Safety training.

Concluding comments: Workplace Health and Safety in context: Construction

Overall, responses to these questions indicate that the Health and Safety culture in Construction is perhaps a

little more formalised than in some of the other sectors. Most workplaces have at least one formal structure in

place and formal training is more prevalent. Relationships between bosses and workers appear generally

positive in this sector, and allow for open and helpful discussion. However, there are indications that talking the

talk but not walking the walk may be more common than desirable, with some bosses turning a blind eye to

shortcuts and risks being taken and a shared commitment to Health and Safety from the top down not being

visible in some workplaces.

When the responses of those workers who had experienced an injury or illness through work in the past 12

months were compared with the responses of workers who had not, the findings support the importance of a

WORKERS

61%

EMPLOYERS

71%

WORKERS

59%

EMPLOYERS

58%

9

good workplace culture in creating safer workplaces. Workers who had experienced harm were significantly less

likely to provide positive ratings of their workplaces across most of the leadership and responsive dialogue

attributes tested.

There is a disparity between the responses of workers and employers in many areas, with employers having a

more positive view than workers.

1.3 KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOURS AROUND RISK

It is important that workers appreciate the risk in their work, that they understand how to mitigate risk and that

they behave appropriately to manage risk.

ONLY 18% OF WORKERS AND 8% OF EMPLOYERS FELT THERE WAS AT LEAST A MODERATE RISK THAT AN INCIDENT COULD OCCUR IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS WHERE THEY OR A

WORKMATE/ SOMEONE WORKING FOR THEIR BUSINESS COULD BE SERIOUSLY HURT AT WORK

Despite 62% of Construction workers and 52% of employers being aware that the Construction industry posed a

higher than average risk to Health and Safety, only a minority of workers (18%) and employers (8%) felt there

was even a moderate risk of serious injury occurring at their workplace in the next 12 months. The great

majority of workers (95%) indicated they felt safe at work and expressed confidence in their knowledge and

skills to keep themselves safe (93%) and, to a less extent, to avoid long-term health problems from work (83%).

93% OF WORKERS WERE CONFIDENT THEY HAD THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO KEEP THEMSELVES SAFE AT WORK AND 83% WERE CONFIDENT THEY HAD THE KNOWLEDGE AND

SKILLS TO AVOID LONG-TERM HEALTH PROBLEMS THROUGH WORK.

Almost all Construction workers and employers were able to identify some of the most common threats to

Health and Safety in their sector. Both workers (85%) and employers (88%) felt that workers had the tools and

equipment needed to do their jobs safely. While 84% of employers felt that workers and supervisors had the

information needed to work safely, workers were less inclined to agree that they were told everything they

needed to know to do their jobs safely (62%).

WORKERS

18%

EMPLOYERS

8%

WORKERS

93% 83%

10

Confidence in knowledge of legal responsibilities (69% confident) and legal rights (70% confident) with regards

to Health and Safety among workers was considerably lower than confidence in their own ability to keep safe at

work (93% confident). Sixty-six percent of employers were confident they were fully aware of their Health and

Safety obligations and 62% were confident they knew how to comply with these obligations.


WERE CONFIDENT THEY WERE FULLY AWARE OF THEIR LEGAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OBLIGATIONS

Compared with some other sectors, employers in Construction expressed lower levels of confidence in their

knowledge around legal responsibilities and how to comply.

Despite seeing little risk of a serious harm incident occurring to them or a workmate/in their business, despite

the great majority of workers being confident that they had the knowledge and skills to keep themselves safe,

and despite the great majority of workers actually feeling safe while at work, a number of risky behaviours

occurred with some frequency (from time to time or more often) in many workplaces.

The most common behaviours in Construction were workers working while sick or injured or when they were

overtired. However, making a mistake through being careless or distracted or taking a risk or short cut on

purpose to save time were also occasional or frequent behaviours in many workplaces.


INDICATED THAT MISTAKES WERE SOMETIMES OR FREQUENTLY MADE IN THEIR WORKPLACE/BUSINESS BY WORKERS BEING CARELESS OR NOT HAVING THEIR MINDS ON THE

JOB

Taking appropriate preventative action helps reduce the risk of incidents or their impact if they do occur.

For the five preventative actions tested, almost all employers and the great majority of workers indicated that

these actions were taken most or all of the time. However, a significantly reduced proportion stated these

actions were taken all of the time. For example, just 44% of workers and 53% of employers stated that personal

protective gear was used when it should be all the time.


INDICATED THAT PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT WAS USED WHEN IT SHOULD BE ALL OF THE TIME.

After considering a list of serious harms (as outlined in the Employment Act 1992), 20% of Construction workers

indicated that they had experienced a serious harm issue at work in the past 12 months, while 26% of employers

indicated that someone working for their business had experienced a serious harm issue/incident.

WORKERS

69%

EMPLOYERS

66%

WORKERS

43%

EMPLOYERS

37%

WORKERS

44%

EMPLOYERS

53%

11


HAD EXPERIENCED A SERIOUS HARM ISSUE/INCIDENT IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

These percentages are likely to be higher than official statistics and must be treated with due caution as they are

based on perceptions of serious harm. However, they provide confirmation that a level of under-reporting

exists, particularly with respect to health-related issues. For example, the harms most commonly cited by

workers were stress-related and mental illnesses, and health problems resulting in severe temporary damage or

temporary severe illness. On the other hand, employers identified the most prevalent harms as lacerations and

eye injuries.

When a serious harm incident or near miss occurs in the workplace, a vital aspect in preventing a reoccurrence

is appropriate reporting and recording of these incidents.

SERIOUS HARM INCIDENTS WERE RECORDED IN 41% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY WORKERS AND IN 69% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY EMPLOYERS

The 20% of Construction workers who had experienced serious harm indicated that the issue/incident had been

reported to management and/or workers in 43% of cases and recorded in a register in 41% of cases. Only 6% of

Construction workers who experienced harm did not tell anyone about it. Among Construction employers whose

businesses had experienced a serious harm incident, the most recent incident had been recorded in 67% of

cases and investigated in 38% of cases.

Thirty-one percent of Construction workers and 32% of businesses had experienced a near miss incident where

someone could have been seriously hurt in the past 12 months.

NEAR MISS INCIDENTS WERE RECORDED IN 35% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY WORKERS AND IN 58% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY EMPLOYERS

Recording of the most recent near miss incidents in a register had taken place for 35% of the Construction

workers in the survey who had experienced a near miss and for 58% of the businesses. Twenty percent of the

workers who had experienced a near miss had not told anyone about it.

Compared with actions taken when incidents or near misses occurred, almost without exception, appropriate

action was felt to have been taken by both workers and employers when a new hazard had been noticed. In

WORKERS

20%

EMPLOYERS

26%

WORKERS

41%

EMPLOYERS

69%

WORKERS

35%

EMPLOYERS

58%

12

other words, new hazards could be being dealt with more effectively than near misses and particularly, harm

incidents.

Concluding comments: Knowledge, understanding and behaviours around risk

There is some awareness of the fact that Construction is a higher risk industry and workers and employers are

generally aware of the common threats to Health and Safety in their work. Nevertheless, almost all workers feel

safe in their work and are confident they know how to keep safe and healthy at work. However, the continuing

occurrence of risky behaviours suggests a degree of complacency. The research also indicates a large degree of

under-reporting and a casual approach to risk management in terms of reporting and recording incidents. It also

suggests that Construction sector employers are relatively less knowledgeable about their legal obligations and

how to comply.

13

1.4 SEGMENTATION

Segmentation analysis identified five segments of workers and five similar segments for employers. The size of

the segments identified in the Construction sector is as follows:

The size of the segments in the Construction sector closely approximates the size of the segments found across

the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall.

Segmenting workers and employers (rather than applying a ‘one size fits all’ approach) will help ensure

communications more effectively address the motivations of these segments and increase the likelihood of

effecting change.

Base: Construction Workers (Proactive Guardian, n=32; Pick & Mix Pragmatists, n=143; Pressured Pick & Mixers, n=88; Tick the Box Unengaged, n=257; Resisting, n=99)

Base: Construction Employers (Proactive Guardian, n=53; Pick & Mix Pragmatists, n=126; Dutiful Pick & Mixers, n=14; Tick the Box, n=129; Unengaged, n=42)

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

PROACTIVE GUARDIAN

6% Proactive Guardians 10% Proactive Guardians

Strong and uncompromising advocates of Health and Safety

PICK AND MIX PRAGMATISTS

22% Pick and Mix Pragmatists 37% Pick and Mix Pragmatists

Value Health and Safety and try to abide by it, but sometimes rules go a bit too far – common sense can be applied

PICK AND MIX (PRESSURED/

DUTIFUL)

14% Pressured Pick and Mixers 4% Dutiful Pick and Mixers

Still value Health and Safety but less fervent than the preceding two segments, sometimes

compromising due to production or time pressures

Value Health and Safety but less fervent than the preceding two segments –

motivated by personal duty of care to workers not by regulations (some over the

top) or the need to comply

TICK THE BOX

41% Tick the Box Unengaged 38% Tick the Box

Less positive emotional engagement with Health and Safety, don’t think about it much

and don’t really know much about it.

More casual emotional engagement with Health and Safety than preceding

segments, will do enough to be able to tick the box in terms of compliance but not

much more.

RESISTING/UNENGAGED

17% Resisting 11% Unengaged

While keeping healthy and safe at work is obviously important, they don’t need rules to

tell them this. The whole Health and Safety thing is frustrating: there are too many rules, it’s unrealistic to follow all of them and they

can be a waste of time because accidents will still happen

Relatively poor attitudes to Health and Safety due to a lack of engagement (rather than frustration or negativity with the rules

around compliance) and a focus on other things

MO

RE

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

LESS

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

14

1.5 COMMUNICATIONS

Workers in Construction looked to their immediate boss for advice about Health and Safety (44%), to a Health

and Safety representative in their workplace (37%) or to SiteSafe (34%), while for employers SiteSafe (52%), a

government agency (51%) or Health and Safety consultants (42%) were perceived as the best sources of advice.

Awareness of the ‘Doing Nothing is not an Option’ Campaign was at a good level, with 31% of workers and 46%

of employers being certain they had noticed this campaign. The great majority of those aware of the campaign

indicated they had taken some positive action or experienced a positive outcome as a result; for example, being

more aware of what others were doing when they were working at heights, using alternative approaches to

making sure they were working safely or changing the way they worked at heights (such as using full protection).

Concluding comments: Communications

The fact that workers identified their bosses as a good source of advice supports earlier indications of positive

dialogue between workers and bosses in Construction. SiteSafe is clearly perceived as a good source of advice by

both workers and employers in this sector and there would be benefit in WorkSafe NZ and SiteSafe working

collaboratively in this sector.

1.6 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WORKSAFE NZ

A respected and trusted work safety authority, known to workers and employers, is an important influence in

workplace Health and Safety.


FELT THEY KNEW AT LEAST QUITE A LOT OR A LOT ABOUT WORKSAFE NZ

Overall, 83% of Construction workers and 88% of employers had heard of WorkSafe NZ. While awareness was

high, knowledge was limited with most workers and employers having simply heard of WorkSafe NZ and having

no knowledge or just professing to know a little bit about this organisation.

HALF OF WORKERS (50%) KNEW THAT THEY COULD GET INFORMATION OR ADVICE ON HEALTH AND SAFETY

FROM WORKSAFE NZ.

Thirty-five percent of Construction workers and 42% of employers had had contact with WorkSafe NZ in the past

12 months, predominantly through seeing materials or information WorkSafe NZ had produced.

WORKERS

17%

EMPLOYERS

29%

WORKERS

50%

15

1.7 GEOGRAPHIC COMPARISON: CANTERBURY, AUCKLAND AND THE REST OF NEW ZEALAND

Throughout the survey, there were indications that employers in the Construction sector in Canterbury had a

greater focus on Health and Safety than employers in other areas.

Workers’ Health and Safety was particularly likely to be in the top three business considerations for Canterbury

employers (72% cf. 50% in Auckland and 55% across the rest of New Zealand). Compliance with laws and

regulations was also more of a focus for Canterbury employers, with 40% cf. 27% of Construction employers

overall citing this as one of their three main priorities.

This focus was also evident when Canterbury employers responded to attitude statements about Health and

Safety. They were more likely to strongly agree that they were highly motivated to comply with health and

safety regulations (43% cf. 31% across all Construction employers) and more likely to disagree/strongly disagree

that health and safety could be a waste of money because it wouldn’t stop all accidents happening (70% cf.

58%).

These differences may be partially attributed to the fact that a higher proportion of the respondents from

Canterbury had Health and Safety manager or director in their job title (17% cf. 9% across all Construction

employers); in other words, worked in businesses where Health and Safety had a dedicated resource within the

organisation.

Other differences of note:

Employers in Canterbury were considerably more likely to be having difficulty recruiting workers with

appropriate skills. Over two in three Canterbury employers (68%) had experienced difficulty over the

past 12 months compared with 43% in Auckland and 34% in the rest of New Zealand

46% of Construction employers in Canterbury employed at least one migrant worker compared with

31% of Construction employers in Auckland and 9% in the rest of New Zealand

Employers in Canterbury were more likely to be aware of WorkSafe NZ and to think it was likely an

inspector might visit in the next 12 months (59% of Canterbury employers thought it was likely

compared with 38% in the rest of New Zealand and 36% in Auckland)

Employers in Canterbury were more likely than average to consider companies in the industry such as

Fletchers should take a big responsibility for Health and Safety (64% cf. 48%).

Employers in Canterbury were more likely than average to have experienced a serious harm incident in

the past 12 months (37% cf. 26%), particularly lacerations or cuts that needed stitches (22% cf. 13%).

Employers in Canterbury were also more likely to have experienced multiple near misses (33% cf. 15%).

When Workers were considered, there were indications that Canterbury workers had more positive perceptions

of their bosses. For example, they were more likely to consider their boss was genuinely concerned about the

Health and Safety of workers (56% strongly agreed this was the case cf. 48% overall). They were also more likely

to strongly agree that their boss would totally support them if they suggested stopping work because of a

possible risk (50% cf. 42%).

16

In comparison, workers in Auckland tended to be less favourable about their boss. For example, they were more

likely to disagree the boss encouraged them to come up with ideas to make their work safer (17% cf. 12%

overall).

Other differences of note include:

In terms of formal training, workers in Canterbury were more likely to indicate they had received formal

training in Health and Safety within the last twelve months (75%), compared with workers in Auckland

(51%) and the rest of New Zealand (59%)

10% of workers in Canterbury indicated that they had been exposed to asbestos in the past 12 months

(cf. 4% in Auckland and 2% in the rest of New Zealand). Awareness of risks around asbestosis was also

higher among Canterbury workers, 22% of whom mentioned this as one of the three main health risks

facing Construction workers (compared with 6% in Auckland and 7% across the rest of New Zealand).

Appropriate action in the event of a serious harm incident or near miss appeared to be more prevalent

among workers in Canterbury than in other parts of the country. Serious harm incidents were reported

on 58% of occasions (compared with 43% among Construction workers overall) and discussions took

place on how to stop it happening again on 35% of occasions (cf. 25% overall). When a new hazard was

identified it was more likely than overall to be entered into a hazard register or on a hazard board in

Canterbury (36% cf. 26% workers overall).

17

SECTION 2:

INTRODUCTION

18

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

New Zealand has unacceptably high rates of workplace fatalities and serious harm injuries. The five sectors


WorkSafe New Zealand was established as a stand-alone workplace health and safety regulator in December

2013. Its mandate from the Government is to lead New Zealand to an at least 25 percent reduction in workplace

fatalities and serious harms by 2020. WorkSafe NZ is focusing on four sectors which are major contributors to

New Zealand’s workplace death and injury toll – Agriculture, Forestry, Construction and Manufacturing (the

sectors examined in this report). WorkSafe NZ has also significantly increased managerial and inspectorate

capability and capacity in the high hazards sectors – extractives, and petroleum and geothermal. WorkSafe NZ is

also responsible for regulating Adventure Activities and other aspects of workplace safety. For more information

visit: www.worksafe.govt.nz.

Maritime New Zealand is the regulator for the maritime industry which includes the Commercial Fishing sector.

For more information visit: www.maritimenz.govt.nz.

Nielsen was appointed to work with WorkSafe NZ to carry out the National Programmes baseline research. The

National Programmes seek to engage workers and employers in improving workplace Health and Safety in New

Zealand. The overall purpose of this research was to:

Inform programme design and development, both at an overall level and within each of the priority

sectors of Agriculture, Construction, Forestry and Manufacturing

Provide a benchmark measure of attitudes and behaviours that can be tracked over time.






employers from outside these five high-risk sectors, provided a ‘lower-risk sector’ point of comparison.

This document reports on the quantitative stage of the research programme, providing a cross-sectoral view as

well as focusing on the Construction sector.

19

2.2 OVERVIEW OF METHOD AND SAMPLE

Structured questionnaires were designed for workers and employers based on extensive consultation with

WorkSafe NZ and Maritime NZ and on the insights provided by the qualitative research.


















others.

Two versions of the questionnaire were prepared, one targeting employers and one targeting workers. Each of

these questionnaires was then adapted for each of the six sectors included in the research (12 versions in total).

A self-completion written survey method, providing respondents with the opportunity to complete the survey

either online or in hard copy, was utilised. This method provided a cost-effective, repeatable means of obtaining

a robust sample of these very hard-to-reach target audiences. The survey will be repeated annually for the next

two years to monitor changes.

A comprehensive technical report which discusses the benefits and limitations of this research approach in more

detail and which elaborates on all the technical aspects outlined below has been issued separately (See: Health

and Safety Attitudes and Behaviours in the New Zealand Workforce: A Survey of Workers and Employers, 2014

Baseline Survey, Technical Report).

20

2.3 WORKERS SURVEY

Method

The Electoral Roll records the names and addresses and occupations of the majority of New Zealanders aged 18

and over who are eligible to vote. The Electoral Roll is a combination of records of:

1) Those who are enrolled on the General Roll, and;

2) Those who are enrolled on the Māori Roll (please note that Māori descent as flagged in the Electoral

Roll was used in this research as an indicator for Māori ethnicity).

Therefore, the Electoral Roll was used to select a representative sample of people working within each of the

sectors being targeted. Potential respondents were selected from the Electoral Roll database as at 17 January

2014.

A series of four communications with the selected sample was used to encourage participation in a written, self-

completion survey with an option to complete online strongly promoted.

A total of 2828 completed surveys were received from workers across the five risk sectors and 923 from workers

in the ‘Other’ sector.

Charts 2.3.1 and 2.4.1 summarise:

The number of people invited to participate for each high-risk sector

The targeted number of completed surveys we hoped to achieve (500 per sector with the exception of

Forestry where, given the relatively small size of the population of workers in this industry, 400

completed surveys were targeted)

The number of completed surveys actually received

The response rate for the survey - calculated as total completed surveys/ total number of people invited

minus all ineligible contacts (e.g. deceased, moved address with no forwarding address, overseas).

2.3.1: Workers’ response

WORKERS AGRICULTURE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MANUFACTURINGCOMMERCIAL

FISHING

NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVITED 2001 2504 2002 2701 2699

TARGETED NUMBER OF

COMPLETED SURVEYS500 500 400 500 500

NUMBER OF COMPLETED SURVEYS

RECEIVED 609 619 378 708 514

RESPONSE RATE 36% 32% 27% 28% 28%

21

(A response rate for the ‘Other’ sector cannot be calculated as some of those originally selected as a worker in

one of the high-risk sectors had changed occupations and completed the survey as a worker in the ‘Other’

sector.)

Overall, the targeted number of surveys was exceeded in all sectors with the exception of Forestry, where 95%

of the target number was achieved.

Limitations of this approach to bear in mind are:

It excludes the 7% of the eligible population not enrolled to vote (this increases to about 23% of 18-24

year olds eligible to vote but not enrolled). The Electoral Roll does not contain all migrant workers, just

those eligible to vote and enrolled to do so

Occupations are self-described on the Electoral Roll and sample selection was carried out by searching

for words or phrases likely to identify a person working in a specific industry. Therefore, some people in

a sector will have been omitted and others may have been selected incorrectly for a sector

A higher proportion of those working in some sectors may not currently be living at the address they

listed on the Electoral Roll (more mobile or moving around to where the work is), thus relying on others

to forward mail to them

The Electoral Roll excludes workers under 18 years

Those with lower levels of literacy may have been less likely to complete a survey.

The workers’ survey took place between 9 July and 16 September 2014.

2.4 EMPLOYERS’ SURVEY

Method

The ACC levy payers’ database was used to select a sample of employers within each of the six sectors. This

database was supplemented for the Forestry sector by a WorkSafe NZ database and for the Commercial Fishing

sector by a Maritime NZ database as well as by personal approaches to employers from Maritime NZ officers.

Again, the method used was a written, self-completion survey with an option to complete online.

A total of 1572 completed surveys were received from employers across the five high-risk sectors and 331

surveys from employers in the ‘Other’ sector.

22

2.4.1: Employers’ response

Overall, the targeted number of interviews was reached in Agriculture and over 90% of the target was

met in Construction, Manufacturing and Forestry but not in the ‘Other’ sector or in Commercial Fishing.

Limitations of this approach are:

The database was of average quality – in many instances there was no named person so we needed to

send the invitation generically to the Health and Safety Manager

ACC excluded any businesses that had taken part in other ACC research in the past six months.

The employers’ research took place between 14 July and 19 September 2014.

2.5 ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

In this report, analysis and reporting is structured as follows:

Most measures are reported at a summary level (i.e. by combining the results for WorkSafe NZ’s four

high-risk sectors). Before they were analysed, the summary and other data were adjusted (or weighted).

These adjustments make sure that the survey respondents are representative of the populations they

are selected from (for workers, these adjustments are based on age within each of the relevant

occupational sectors in the Electoral Roll and for employers on size of business within occupational

sector in the ACC Levy Payers’ database). The Technical Report has more details of these adjustments.

Results are also reported at an individual sector level, so the four sectors can be compared with each

other and with the Commercial Fishing and ‘Other’ sectors. The ‘Other’ sector includes those workers

and employers who did not fall into one of WorkSafe NZ’s four high-risk sectors or the Commercial

Fishing sector.

Margin of Error

All sample surveys are subject to sampling error. Sampling error is the measure of uncertainty arising from

survey estimates because only a sample of the population is observed. Based on a total sample size of 2314

respondents for workers and 1425 for employers in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, the results shown in

this survey are subject to a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 2.0% and 2.6% respectively at the 95%

confidence level. That is, there is a 95% chance that the true population value of a result of 50% actually lies

EMPLOYERS AGRICULTURE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MANUFACTURINGCOMMERCIAL

FISHING OTHER SECTOR

NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVITED 1285 1276 916 1266 807 1201

TARGETED NUMBER OF

COMPLETED SURVEYS400 400 300 367 242 400

NUMBER OF COMPLETED

SURVEYS RECEIVED 401 364 293 367 147 331

RESPONSE RATE 37% 34% 42% 33%27%

(ACC database only)35%

23

between 48% and 52% for workers or 52.6% and 47.4% for employers. As the result moves further away from

50%, so the error margin will decrease.

The maximum error margins for each of the subgroups of interest are:

2.5.1 Margin of error

MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR

ON 50% RESULTS

WORKERS(SAMPLE ACHIEVED)

MARGIN OF

ERROR (95% LEVEL

OF CONFIDENCE)

EMPLOYERS (SAMPLE ACHIEVED)

MARGIN OF

ERROR (95% LEVEL

OF CONFIDENCE)

AGRICULTURE 609 ± 4.0 % 401 ± 4.9%

CONSTRUCTION 619 ± 3.9% 364 ± 5.2%

FORESTRY 378 ± 5.1% 293 ± 5.8%

MANUFACTURING 708 ± 3.7% 367 ± 5.1%

COMMERCIAL FISHING 514 ± 4.3% 147 ± 8.2%

OTHER 923 ± 3.2% 331 ± 5.4%

TOTAL WORKSAFE NZ4 RISK SECTORS

2314 ± 2.0% 1425 ± 2.6%

24

2.6 NOTES TO THE REPORT

When reading this report, please bear the following in mind:

NOTES TO THE REPORT

Because this survey was self-completion, a small number of respondents omitted to answer one or more questions on the paper copy (this was not an issue with online completion as respondents had to answer a question before being able to move to the next question). It was also decided to make some potentially sensitive questions optional (e.g. whether serious harm occurred) to allow respondents to complete the remainder of the survey even if they chose not to complete such questions. Therefore, the analysis is based on the number of respondents who completed each particular question. This means that the base numbers quoted in the charts and tables vary slightly between questions.

Please note that it was not relevant to ask some questions of particular groups of respondents. For example it was not relevant to ask self-employed people about their boss. Where a ‘not applicable’ group has been removed from the analysis, this is noted in the description of the bases at the bottom of every chart and table in the report.

The intention of this report is to provide high-level analysis and point out areas of likely interest. Given the enormous quantity of detailed data across sectors and from both workers and employers, judgment has been used by the author in determining which avenues of investigation to pursue and to highlight. The intention is that this report will be a stimulus for readers with particular areas of interest to form hypotheses and to use the detailed data tables to investigate further.

Please note inter-relationships between sub-groups. For example, differences between Māori and other ethnicities may be in part a function of the sectors Māori are more likely to work in such as Forestry which gives a higher priority to Health and Safety. Another example, large companies are more likely to be found in some sectors than in others. Therefore, differences in results between sectors may be partly explained by the greater presence of large companies in a sector.

The structure of the report follows the structure of the earlier Qualitative Report to allow for easy cross-reference.

Any differences between sub-groups mentioned in the body of this report are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Significance testing is conducted using the effective base size. The effective base is used as a safeguard against making statistical conclusions from a sample that has been drastically adjusted up or down (using weights) to match the population. The effective base is calculated using the following formula: Effective base = (sum of weight factors) squared / sum of the squared weight factors.

To help manage the amount of detailed data in this report, results are often presented in summary form (for example, the % who agreed with a statement) rather than showing every possible data point . Therefore, when interpreting the data, it is important to remember that the remaining respondents did not necessarily disagree with a statement but consist of those who disagreed, were non-committal (neither agreed nor disagreed) or uncertain.

25

2.7 CONSTRUCTION SECTOR PROFILE

The following table profiles the workers and employers who responded to the survey by their areas of work. It

illustrates the actual number of completed surveys obtained from each group and then shows the proportion of

the Construction respondents accounted for by each group (note that respondents were able to give multiple

responses so the percentages add up to more than 100%).

2.7.1 Type of work: Workers

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WORKERS

TYPE OF WORKUNWEIGHTED

COUNTWEIGHTED % TYPE OF WORK

UNWEIGHTED COUNT

WEIGHTED %

BUILDER 169 28% INTERIOR FITTER 58 10%

ROOFER 34 7% FINISHING 73 11%

ELECTRICIAN 75 12% LANDSCAPING 36 6%

PLUMBER 37 6% DEMOLITION 60 11%

OTHER SPECIALIST TRADE 75 12% ASBESTOS REMOVAL 5 1%

WORKING ON UTILITIES 39 6% EXCAVATIONS 49 8%

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 108 18% MACHINE OPERATOR 53 9%

MANUAL LABOUR 90 16% WORKING WITH MOBILE PLANT 82 13%

TEAM LEADER / SUPERVISOR 138 23% WORKING BELOW GROUND LEVEL 40 7%

TRAINEE / APPRENTICE TRADES PERSON 20 3% WORKING AT HEIGHTS 115 20%

FOUNDATION AND GROUND PREPARATION

64 10% CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 44 7%

ERECTION AND ASSEMBLY 56 9% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63 10%

EXTERIOR CLADDING 76 13% MANAGEMENT 18 2%

OTHER 14 2%

26

2.7.2 Type of Work: Employers

2.7.3 Main Task at Work: Workers and Employers

CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS

TYPE OF WORKUNWEIGHTED

COUNTWEIGHTED % TYPE OF WORK

UNWEIGHTED COUNT

WEIGHTED %

BUILDING 95 30% FINISHING 45 14%

ROOFING 40 15% LANDSCAPING 32 8%

ELECTRICIAN 47 12% DEMOLITION 38 10%

PLUMBER 27 9% ASBESTOS REMOVAL 7 2%

OTHER SPECIALIST TRADE 37 9% EXCAVATIONS 61 14%

WORKING ON UTILITIES 47 7% MACHINE OPERATOR 41 9%

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 71 18% WORKING WITH MOBILE PLANT 80 17%

FOUNDATION AND GROUND PREPARATION

66 18% CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 27 7%

ERECTION AND ASSEMBLY 29 8% SCAFFOLDING/RIGGING 7 1%

EXTERIOR CLADDING 54 17% HEATING/AIR CONDITIONING 6 2%

INTERIOR FITTING 48 16% OTHER 37 9%

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS EMPLOYERS

MAIN TASK AT WORKUNWEIGHTED

COUNTSWEIGHTED %

UNWEIGHTED COUNTS

WEIGHTED %

HEAVY AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 95 16% 56 10%

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 255 41% 138 46%

NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 167 27% 114 28%

LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PREPARATION SERVICES 59 10% 44 10%

BUILDING STRUCTURE SERVICES 78 13% 64 17%

BUILDING INSTALLATION SERVICES 109 18% 80 22%

BUILDING COMPLETION SERVICES 133 21% 81 29%

SUPPLIERS TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 13 2% - -

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19 3% 1 1%

MANAGEMENT 6 1% - -

MAINTENANCE (BUILDING AND MACHINERY) 23 3% 8 3%

DRAINLAYING/DRAINAGE - - 6 2%

OTHER 24 4% 34 11%

27

The following breakdown provides a profile of the workers who responded to the survey:

2.7.4 Profile of Construction Workers

2.7.5 Construction Workers and Employers by Region

CONSTRUCTION WEIGHTED % CONSTRUCTION WEIGHTED %

GENDER

MALE 96%

INVOLVEMENT IN CANTERBURY REBUILD

I DO NOT WORK IN CANTERBURY 57%

FEMALE 4%I WORK IN CANTERBURY BUT NOT ON THE REBUILD

7%

AGE

18 – 24 YEARS 4% I AM WORKING ON THE CANTERBURY REBUILD

10%

25 - 34 YEARS 20%I AM WORKING WITH MIGRANT WORKERS WHO WERE HIRED TO WORK ON THE CANTERBURY REBUILD

2%

35 – 44 YEARS 22% NONE OF THESE 27%

45 – 54 YEARS 25%

YEARS IN

INDUSTRY

LESS THAN ONE YEAR 3%

55 + YEARS 29% 1-2 YEARS 2%

NEW ZEALAND EUROPEAN 77% 3-5 YEARS 7%

ETHNICITY MAORI 11% 6-9 YEARS 14%

PACIFIC 4% 10-19 YEARS 26%

ASIAN 3% 20 YEARS OR MORE 48%

SIZE OF BUSINESS WORKED FOR

SELF EMPLOYED 15%

NUMBER OF

WORK HOURS A

WEEK

LESS THAN 20 HOURS 3%

2 TO 5 EMPLOYEES 26% 20-30 HOURS 5%




50 TO 99 EMPLOYEES 4% 61 HOURS OR MORE 3%

100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES 14%

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS EMPLOYERS

REGIONUNWEIGHTED

COUNTSWEIGHTED %

UNWEIGHTED COUNTS

WEIGHTED %

NORTHERN REGION 203 38% 109 25%

CENTRAL REGION 141 31% 112 27%

SOUTHERN REGION 313 39% 188 46%

28

A profile of Construction employers responding to the survey is as follows:

2.7.6 Profile of Construction Employers

CONSTRUCTION WEIGHTED %

SIZE OF BUSINESS

NONE 13%

1 TO 5 EMPLOYEES 52%





100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES 2%

# YEARS IN OPERATION

LESS THAN ONE YEAR 3%

1 TO LESS THAN 2 YEARS 4%




20 YEARS OR MORE 34%

DON'T KNOW 1%

# SITES OWNED OR LEASED

NONE 36%

1 50%

2 TO 5 12%

6 TO 9 1%

10 OR MORE 1%

# SITES HAVE WORKERS ON BUT BUT NOT OWNED BY BUSINESS

NONE 19%

1 15%

2 TO 5 41%

6 TO 9 11%

10 OR MORE 14%

INVOLVEMENT IN CANTERBURY REBUILD

WE ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CANTERBURY REBUILD 15%

WE HAVE EMPLOYED MIGRANT WORKERS TO HELP WITH THE CANTERBURY REBUILD 7%

WE HAVE EMPLOYED NEW ZEALAND WORKERS TO HELP WITH THE CANTERBURY REBUILD 15%

WE ARE NOT BASED IN CANTERBURY 53%

NONE OF THE ABOVE 27%

29

SECTION 3:

WORKPLACE HEALTH

AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT

30

3 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT This section presents information to help put attitudes and behaviours to Health and Safety in context.

First, we consider:

Where Health and Safety sits in the priorities of workers and employers, relative to other workplace and

business considerations

The extent to which workers and employers see themselves as having a very big responsibility for

workplace Health and Safety, relative to other groups of people and organisations with influence in the

workplace.

The qualitative research highlighted the huge impact that workplace culture has on Health and Safety practices

in the WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors. Therefore, in this section we also look at factors known to influence a

positive Health and Safety culture. This draws on the work carried out by Valerie Braithwaite for Safe Work

Australia and reported in Motivation, Attitudes, Perceptions and Skills: Pathways to Safe Work (2011).

Three of the factors identified in Braithwaite’s work as influencing a safer workplace are:

1. Leadership: that is, where leaders are seen to value safety for its own sake and prioritise safety above all

else

2. Responsive dialogue: that is, where management, supervisors and workers are able to openly discuss

safety issues and there is shared determination to ensure the workplace is safe

3. Participatory structures: that is, where formal avenues are in place to ensure safety issues are not

overlooked and workers voices are heard (e.g. having a Health and Safety representative).

Finally in this section, we look at how much influence each of a number of business levers has in determining

what New Zealand businesses do in relation to Health and Safety.

31

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

3.1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY

We asked workers to choose the three aspects (from a list of 14) that were most important to them in their

work. Employers were asked the same question in relation to their businesses.

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, staying healthy and safe while at work was one of the three main

priorities of one third of workers. Employers were more likely than workers to prioritise Health and Safety, with

half identifying keeping workers healthy and safe while at work as one of their three most important business

priorities.

3.1.1 Proportion putting Health and Safety in their three most important work/business considerations

The following chart summarises the proportion of workers and employers from each of the six sectors who

identified Health and Safety as one of their top three priorities.

As can be seen, workers as well as employers in the Forestry sector were more likely than those in all other

sectors to prioritise Health and Safety, particularly when compared with those working in the ‘Other’ sector.

Workers in Agriculture and the ‘Other’ sector were less inclined to prioritise Health and Safety.

In every sector, a higher proportion of employers than workers identified Health and Safety as one of their three

main priorities. Of particular note were the large majority of employers in Forestry (87%) who prioritised Health

and Safety.

33% 50%

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Base: Workers from the 4 risk sectors (n=2296)

Q: What 3 things are most important to you in your work right now?

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors (n=1351)

Q: What 3 aspects are most important considerations for your business right now?

32

3.1.2 Proportion putting Health and Safety in their three most important work/business considerations: Workers and Employers

To provide context around where Health and Safety sits relative to other work and business considerations, the

following table identifies the aspects that emerged most frequently as one of the three most important

considerations among workers in each sector.

As can be seen, the ranking of ‘staying healthy and safe while at work’ was high among workers in Commercial

Fishing and in Forestry, while it does not appear in the top three rankings of workers in the Agriculture or ‘Other’

sectors.

The qualitative research concluded that one of the key cultural characteristics shared by workers in the high-risk

sectors was a strong pride in the nature of the work they do, their personal prowess and satisfaction derived

from a tangible job well done.

This was reinforced in the survey; pride in doing a good job was the aspect most frequently mentioned as one of

the three top considerations by workers in the Agriculture, Construction and Forestry sectors and was second

most frequently mentioned for Manufacturing and Commercial Fishing.

A regular income achieved the top ranking among workers in Manufacturing while a good work/life balance

achieved the top ranking for workers in the ‘Other’ sector.

30%

65%

48%

87%

57%

44%

20%

39%

40%

51%

37%

23% AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Base: Workers (Agriculture, n=599; Construction, n=617; Forestry, n=377; Manufacturing, n=703; Commercial Fishing,

n=506; Other sector, n=916)

Q: What 3 things are most important to you in your work right now

Base: Employers (Agriculture, n=380; Construction, n=345; Forestry, n=269; Manufacturing, n=357; Commercial Fishing, n=135; Other sector, n=322)


33

3.1.3 Top 3 work considerations within sector: Workers

The importance of staying healthy and safe at work increases with age. Compared with workers younger than 35

years, workers in the four high-risk sectors aged 35 years or older were more likely to choose staying healthy

and safe at work as one of their top three considerations. Mentions of Health and Safety peaked among 45-54

year old workers (39% put in their top three) and were least frequent among workers aged 18-24 years (20% put

in their top three). Pride in doing a good job remained the most frequently mentioned consideration among

younger workers. However, learning new things, making good money and building a better future or a career

and/or working for a promotion were mentioned more frequently by younger workers when compared with

older workers.

Also noteworthy is that a higher proportion of Māori, Pacific and Asian workers (40%, 48% and 51% respectively)

put Health and Safety in their top three considerations compared with those of New Zealand European ethnicity

(32%). This result may, in part, reflect the higher priority given to Health and Safety in the sectors these ethnic

groups are more prominent in (Forestry, Manufacturing and Commercial Fishing).

Among employers, as can be seen in the following table, workers’ Health and Safety was the highest ranked

consideration among Forestry employers (by a long way) and also among Commercial Fishing, Construction and

Agriculture. There were some variations across sector in terms of other highly-ranked considerations. In

Agriculture, the health and welfare of animals and business growth/profitability were also key considerations

while, in Construction, business reputation also had a strong focus. Many employers in Forestry and Commercial

Fishing had a focus on compliance and Manufacturing had a focus on delivering excellent products.

AGRICULTURE(n=599)

CONSTRUCTION(n=617)

FORESTRY(n=377)

MANUFACTURING(n=703)

COMMERCIAL FISHING (n=506)

OTHER(n=916)

1 48%Pride in doing a good job

57%Pride in doing a good job


51% Regular income 39% Healthy and safe at work

49%Good work/life balance

2 36%Good work/life balance


51%Healthy and safe at work



43%Regular income

3 29%Working outdoors or on the land


44%Regular income




Base: Workers


34

3.1.4 Top 3 business considerations within sector: Employers

Focus on workers’ Health and Safety peaked in businesses with 100 or more employees, where 80% of

employers placed Health and Safety in their top three considerations. It was lowest among businesses with 1-5

employees (47% in top three).

Base: Employers


AGRICULTURE(n=380)

CONSTRUCTION(n=345)

FORESTRY(n=269)



OTHER(n=322)

1 44%Healthy and safe at work



49%Excellent products/services

65% Healthy and safe at work

49%Respected and trusted business

2 43%Health and welfare of animals


47%

Ensuring business complies with laws


60%

Ensuring business complies with laws

47%

Growing business/improving profitability

3 41%


34%Ensuring enough work in pipeline


42%




35

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Chart 3.1.5 following shows the frequency with which Construction workers put each consideration as one of

their three most important considerations. As can be seen, Health and Safety achieved a ranking of second equal

alongside having a good work/life balance and having a regular income. Pride in doing a good job was

mentioned most frequently, while enjoying the work, making good money and working with people they liked

and respected were all aspects of work that were important to many Construction workers, considerably more

so than building a career or learning new things.

3.1.5 Proportion putting each aspect in three most important considerations (%): Workers in Construction

Noteworthy differences by demographic group within Construction include:

Workers with no qualifications were more likely to consider pride in doing a good job (70% cf. 57%

across the sector) and staying healthy and safe while at work important considerations in their work

(49% cf. 37%)

Older Construction workers were more likely than younger workers to be concerned about staying fit

and healthy so they could keep doing their jobs (28% cf. 16% overall)

As was the case with younger workers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors as a whole, young

Construction workers were more likely to be working hard to build a better future and to want to learn

new things

Workers aged 25-34 years were more likely to consider making good money an important consideration

57%

37%

37%

37%

24%

20%

19%

16%

12%

12%

10%

5%

5%

3%

TAKING PRIDE IN DOING A GOOD JOB

HAVING A GOOD WORK/LIFE BALANCE

STAYING HEALTHY AND SAFE WHILE AT WORK

HAVING A REGULAR INCOME

ENJOYING MY WORK

MAKING GOOD MONEY

WORKING WITH PEOPLE I LIKE AND RESPECT

STAYING FIT AND HEALTHY SO I CAN KEEP DOING THE WORK I DO

BEING FREE TO MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS

WORKING HARD NOW TO BUILD A BETTER FUTURE

LEARNING NEW THINGS

WORKING OUTDOORS OR ON THE LAND

WORKING FOR A PROMOTION OR TO BUILD A CAREER

DOING PHYSICAL WORK

Base: Workers in Construction (n=617)


36

(30% cf. 20% across the sectors)

Self-employed Construction workers were particularly likely to consider taking pride in doing a good job

an important consideration (68% cf. 57%) , while those working somewhere with 100 or more

employees were more likely to mention working with people they liked and respected (34% cf. 19%)

Construction workers in Canterbury not working on the rebuild were more likely to put having a good

work/life balance (49% cf. 32% of those working on the rebuild) as one of their top three considerations

Those working mainly in building completion services were particularly likely to have taking pride in

doing a good job as one of their top three considerations (71% cf. 57%)

Health and Safety was a particular consideration among manual labourers (48% put this in their top

three) and those working with mobile plant (52% put in top three).

Among Construction employers, workers’ Health and Safety was one of the top three business considerations

for 57%, with an almost equal proportion selecting being a respected and trusted business in their top three.

3.1.6 Proportion putting each aspect in three most important considerations (%): Employers in Construction

Construction employers in the Canterbury region were particularly likely to place workers’ Health and Safety

and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations in their top three considerations (72% compared with 57%

overall, and 40% cf. 27% respectively).

Construction employers with 10 to 19 employees (74% cf. 57%) and those with one or more recent migrants

were also more likely to identify Health and Safety in their top three considerations, while those with one to five

employees were more likely to consider being a respected and trusted business as one of their top three.

57%

56%

34%

30%

27%

27%

20%

13%

12%

5%

4%

3%

KEEPING WORKERS HEALTHY AND SAFE WHILE AT WORK

BEING A RESPECTED AND TRUSTED BUSINESS

MAKING SURE THERE IS ENOUGH WORK IN THE PIPELINE

PRODUCING EXCELLENT PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICES

GROWING / IMPROVING PROFITABILITY OF THE BUSINESS

ENSURING THE BUSINESS COMPLIES WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS

ATTRACTING AND RETAINING GOOD WORKERS

CONTINUALLY IMPROVING THE BUSINESS TO MAXIMISE PRODUCTIVITY

BEING A GREAT PLACE TO WORK FOR ALL PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS

BEING AN INNOVATIVE BUSINESS

SUCCESSION PLANNING / PLANNING WHO WILL TAKE OVER IF KEY PEOPLE LEAVE / RETIRE / ARE UNABLE TO WORK

BEING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY BUSINESS

Base: Employers in Construction (n=345)


37

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

3.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY

The extent to which workers take personal responsibility for their own Health and Safety has a huge influence on

creating safer workplaces. Survey respondents were asked to indicate how much responsibility they felt each of

a number of groups in the workplace should take for making sure workers stayed healthy and safe while at work.

They responded using a five point scale, where 1 represented no responsibility at all and 5 represented a very

big responsibility.

The following diagram illustrates the proportion of workers and the proportion of employers in the four

WorkSafe NZ risk sectors overall who attributed a very big responsibility to each group. As can be seen, the

responses of workers and employers are very similar. Overall, 84% of workers and 86% of employers believed

the workers themselves had a very big responsibility (5 on the 5-point scale).

The immediate boss or supervisor was also seen by most workers to have a very big responsibility (71%), with a

slightly higher proportion of employers believing this to be the case (76%).

Just 36% of workers and a smaller proportion of employers (23%) assigned a very big responsibility to the

government, although the majority assigned them some responsibility (71% of workers and 70% of employers

rated government 3-5 out of 5).

3.2.1 Proportion indicating each group as having ‘very big’ responsibility for workplace Health and Safety: Workers and Employers

84%

71%

57%

47%

44%

36%

35%

32%

86%

76%

58%

39%

42%

23%

26%

20%

THE WORKERS THEMSELVES

THE IMMEDIATE BOSS OR SUPERVISOR OF THE WORKERS

TOP MANAGEMENT (E.G. CHIEF EXECUTIVE, BOARD)

COMPANIES IN THE INDUSTRY

MACHINERY AND VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS THAT SUPPLY THE INDUSTRY

THE GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRY BODIES

WORKERS' UNIONS

WORKERS EMPLOYERSBase: Workers from the 4 risk sectors (n=2227-2281)

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors (n=1325-1354)

Q: How much responsibility should each of the following groups take for making sure workers stay healthy and safe at work (5 point

scale where 1= no responsibility and 5 = very big responsibility)?

38

While 84% of workers overall believed they had a very big responsibility to keep themselves safe at work, this

proportion was slightly lower among workers of Asian ethnicity (71%) and workers aged 18-24 years (76%).

The table following shows the three groups identified most often by workers within each sector as having a very

big responsibility for workers’ Health and Safety. Agriculture, Construction and Forestry workers were more

likely to see workers themselves as having the most responsibility for Health and Safety. In Manufacturing,

almost identical proportions assigned a very big responsibility to the business owners and immediate bosses as

to the workers themselves. Among workers in Commercial Fishing, the boat owners were assigned a very big

responsibility, even to a slightly greater extent than the workers and the immediate bosses.

3.2.2 Groups with very big responsibility in workplace Health and Safety: Workers

When the same analysis is undertaken for employers within each sector, a very consistent picture emerges. The

three groups most likely to be assigned a very big responsibility for workers’ Health and Safety by employers

within a sector matched the three groups from the workers’ responses. In all sectors, with the exception of the

‘Other’ sector the rank order of the top three was also identical.

3.2.3 Groups with very big responsibility in workplace Health and Safety: Employers

AGRICULTURE(n=581-592)

CONSTRUCTION(n=609-613)

FORESTRY(n=373-376)

MANUFACTURING(n=680-703)

COMMERCIAL FISHING (n=494-496)

OTHER(n=629-913)*

1 83%Workers themselves

87%Workers themselves



79%Boat owner/operator/master/skipper

79%Business owner

2 60%Immediate boss or supervisor

76%Immediate boss or supervisor


77%Business owner



3 56%Farm or property owners

73% Site manager 68%Companies in the industry




Base: Workers

Q: How much responsibility should each of the following groups take for making sure workers stay healthy and safe at work (5 point scale where 1= no responsibility and 5 = very big responsibility)?*Note: Range varies due to question about “Business owner” only being asked of online respondents


CONSTRUCTION(n=346)

FORESTRY(n=268-269)



OTHER(n=319)

1 85%The workers themselves

87%The workers themselves



85%

Boat owner/ operator/master/skipper


2 71%Immediatemanagers or supervisors

79%Immediatemanagers or supervisors


81%Business owner


81%Businessowner

3 64%Farm or property owner

74% Site manager 72%Companies in Industry




Base: Employers

Q: How much responsibility should each of the following groups take for making sure workers stay healthy and safe at work (5 point scale where 1= no responsibility and 5 = very big responsibility)?

39

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Within the Construction sector, again the workers themselves are most likely to be seen by both workers and

employers as having a very big responsibility for Health and Safety, followed by the immediate boss or

supervisor. The site manager is rated almost as highly as the immediate boss or supervisor. Among both workers

and employers, while property owners were felt to have at least some responsibility, only a minority felt that

they had a very big responsibility. The degree of responsibility the site manager was seen to have was

considerably greater than that of the property owner.

3.2.4 Proportion indicating each group as having “very big” responsibility for workplace Health and Safety: Workers and Employers in Construction

Workers, and particularly employers, in the Construction sector were more likely than those in the four

WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall to assign a very big responsibility to companies in the industry (55% of

Construction workers cf. 47% of workers in the four high-risk sectors overall and 48% of Construction employers

cf. 39% of employers overall). This was particularly so among employers in Canterbury and Wellington (both

64%).

Among Construction workers, Māori workers and those working in heavy and civil engineering construction

were more likely than average to assign a very big responsibility to groups not directly involved in the workplace

such as machinery and vehicle manufacturers that supply the industry, the government, industry bodies and

workers’ unions.

Among Construction employers, as a general observation the larger the employer the more likely they were to

consider most groups to have a very big responsibility for Health and Safety.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? WORKERS EMPLOYERS

The workers themselves 87% 87%

The immediate boss or supervisor of the workers 76% 79%

The site manager 73% 74%

Top management (e.g. Chief Executive, Board) 62% 62%

Companies in the industry (e.g. Fletchers) 55% 48%

Machinery and vehicle manufacturers that supply the industry 46% 40%

The Government 41% 28%

Industry bodies (e.g. Master Builders, Master Plumbers) 38% 29%

Workers' unions 36% 22%

The property owner 30% 28%

Base: Workers in Construction (n=605-613)

Base: Employers in Construction (n=340-346)

Q: How much responsibility should each of the following groups take for making sure workers stay healthy and safe at

work (5 point scale where 1= no responsibility and 5 = very big responsibility)?

40

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

3.3 LEADERSHIP

The qualitative research concluded that a worker’s immediate boss sets the tone in terms of how Health and

Safety is regarded. If the boss is seen to prioritise Health and Safety above other considerations then this flows

through to the workers.

Here, we look at three indicators of leadership: bosses showing a genuine concern for workers’ Health and

Safety, putting Health and Safety above production and profit, and praising and rewarding safe behaviours.

Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements, using a 5-

point scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree (this analysis excludes workers who indicated they were self-

employed or did not have a boss).

On average across the four high-risk sectors, 76% of workers agreed (4-5 out of 5) that the boss was genuinely

concerned about the Health and Safety of the workers while just 8% disagreed.

When the results of the six sectors are compared, genuine concern from bosses was evident to at least seven in

ten workers in each sector. A slightly higher proportion of Manufacturing workers disagreed that bosses were

genuinely concerned about their workers’ Health and Safety (11%).

3.3.1 Proportion agreeing boss shows genuine concern for Health and Safety: Workers

Across the four high-risk sectors, 63% of workers disagreed that the boss sometimes seemed more interested in

getting the job done or in making a profit than in safety. However, 21% agreed with this statement.

Workers in the Forestry and Agriculture sectors were more likely than workers in other sectors to indicate that

the boss always put workers’ safety ahead of other considerations.

Base: Workers excluding self employed and doesn’t apply(Agriculture, n=255; Construction, n=381; Forestry, n=301; Manufacturing, n=625; Commercial Fishing, n=223; Other sector, n=744)

Q: Level of agreement using 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree

71%

78%

71%

81%

76%

80%AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS

41

3.3.2 Proportion disagreeing boss sometimes seems more interested in getting the job done or profit than in safety: Workers

Of the three leadership indicators included in this section, the least positive result was in relation to recognising

and rewarding safe actions.

Across the four high-risk sectors, just 45% of workers agreed that the boss praised or rewarded workers who

acted safely, while 26% disagreed that this was the case. As can be seen below, Forestry bosses were rated more

positively than other employers in this regard.

3.3.3 Proportion agreeing boss praises and rewards workers who act safely: Workers



58%

58%

59%

69%

61%

70%AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS



39%

49%

44%

54%

45%

46%AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS

42

Reinforcing the importance of leadership as an influence on safer workplaces, the research shows a relationship

between workers’ perceptions of leadership and whether or not a worker had experienced a serious harm issue

or incident in the 12 months prior to the survey. In particular, across the four risk sectors, among those workers

who had had an issue/incident:

18% disagreed the boss showed genuine concern for workers’ Health and Safety (compared with 6%

who had not had an incident)

37% agreed the boss sometimes seemed more interested in getting the job done or making a profit

(compared with 17%)

42% disagreed the boss praised and rewarded safe behaviour (compared with 21%).

A similar pattern emerged when the responses of workers who had had a near miss were compared with those

who had not; that is, those who had experienced a near miss tended to give less positive ratings of leadership.

The table following compares the responses of workers with the responses of employers on three very similar

leadership indicators. The general pattern is that a higher proportion of employers attributed these aspects of

leadership to their businesses, when compared with the proportion of workers who attributed these aspects to

their immediate boss or supervisor. However, the rank order of indicators remains consistent, with genuine

concern being rated most positively and recognition and reward being rated least positively.

3.3.4 Comparisons of workers’ and employers’ views on leadership

Some variations of note among employers:

Forestry employers were more likely to indicate that business practice was strongly influenced by a very

strong concern for their workers (98%) while Manufacturing employers were least likely at 86%

While only 6% overall disagreed that their business considered safety at least as important as production

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

76%agree

Boss genuinely concerned about Health

and Safety of workers

Business practices strongly influenced by very strong

concern for welfare of workers

88%agree

63%disagree

Boss sometimes seems more interested in getting

job done or profit than safety

Business considers safety at least as important as

production and quality in the way work is done

80% agree

45% agree

Boss praises or rewards workers who act safely

Those who act safely receive positive recognition

65%agree

Base: Workers from the 4 risk sectors excluding self employed and not applicable (n=1560-1562)

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors (n=1345-1350)

GENUINECONCERN

SAFETY ASPRIORITY

SAFE BEHAVIOURREWARDED

43

and quality in the way work was done, among employers in businesses with more than 100 employees

the percentage disagreeing rose to 22%

These large businesses were also less likely to agree that those who acted positively were recognised

(47% versus 65% overall). Interestingly, workers working in larger businesses were more likely than

workers in smaller businesses to state they were recognised for safe behaviour (52% of workers in

businesses with 100+ employees compared with 34% of workers in businesses with 6-9 employees) ,

perhaps indicating that recognition is being provided at the level of immediate supervisor but not

formalised in these larger organisations.

44

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

(Around two fifths of workers in the Construction sector did not respond to questions about a boss because they

were self-employed or did not consider they had a boss).

The picture for Construction is similar to that of the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall.

3.3.5 Comparisons of workers and employers’ views on leadership: Construction

There were some variations among sub-groups of Construction workers as follows:

Workers working mainly in land development and site preparation were more likely to feel that their

boss was genuinely concerned about their Health and Safety (90% agree) and that safe behaviour was

rewarded (62%)

Workers who managed or supervised three or more workers were also more likely to feel that safe

behaviour was rewarded (54%)

As indicated earlier, those workers who had experienced a serious harm issue/incident were more likely

to give unfavourable responses to these leadership indicators. For example, 39% of those who had

experienced such an issue/incident agreed that the boss sometimes put other considerations ahead of

safety, compared with 18% who had not had an issue/incident

Those working mainly in building structure services were also more likely to feel the boss sometimes

seemed more interested in getting the job done or profit than safety (35% agreed cf. 22% overall)

While not statistically significant due to small base sizes, of particular interest among employers’ responses was

that 43% of the respondents working for large Construction businesses with 100 or more employees disagreed

that safety was considered at least as important as production and quality (cf. 9% disagreement across

employers in the sector). Forty-three percent of these employers from large businesses also disagreed that

those who acted safely received positive recognition (cf. 8% of employers in the sector).

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

76%agree

Boss genuinely concerned about Health

and Safety of workers

Business practices strongly influenced by very strong

concern for welfare of workers

89%agree

61%disagree

Boss sometimes seems more interested in getting

job done or profit than safety

Business considers safety at least as important as

production and quality in the way work is done

78% agree

45% agree

Boss praises or rewards workers who act safely

Those who act safely receive positive recognition

69%agree

Base: Workers from Construction excluding self employed and not applicable (n=380-381)

Base: Employers from Construction (n=345-346)

GENUINECONCERN

SAFETY ASPRIORITY

SAFE BEHAVIOURREWARDED

45

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

3.4 RESPONSIVE DIALOGUE

Responsive dialogue involves communication across levels of an organisation leading to identifying problems

and fixing them.

Nielsen’s qualitative research highlighted communication in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors as being

straight-talking and direct, therefore facilitating open and honest dialogue. However this was sometimes

counter-balanced by a reluctance to speak out when the ‘boss knows best’, not wanting to lose face by seeming

weak, or not wanting to cause workmates to lose face by pulling them up.

In the quantitative survey, responsive dialogue was investigated via two areas of questioning:

1. Measuring perceptions (via a 5-point agreement scale) of what happens in the workplace. Here, a

number of aspects were considered; for example, whether safety issues are discussed openly and

without fear, and whether there is a shared determination to ensure the workplace is safe

2. Measuring the extent to which behaviours that demonstrate responsive dialogue are seen to occur; for

example, the frequency with which workers report hazards, near misses and serious harm incidents to

bosses (via a scale from always, most of the time, about half the time, less than half the time, never).

Perceptions of Responsive Dialogue

The following table presents a summary of responses from workers and employers in the four WorkSafe NZ

high-risk sectors to a series of indicator statements. In many cases, workers and employers have been asked to

rate the same concept, making their responses directly comparable. In the table following, the statements are

ranked from most positive to least positive, based on the proportion of workers who gave a favourable

response either by agreeing with a positively-worded statement (e.g. I always have a say in decisions affecting

my health) or disagreeing with a negatively-worded statement (e.g. I would worry I would get into trouble if I

told my boss I had a near miss).

As can be seen, for every indicator the majority of workers rated their bosses/workplaces favourably. The most

favourable response was that 79% disagreed they would worry about getting into trouble by reporting a near

miss to their boss. The least favourable response was that a comparatively low 59% agreed that everyone in the

workplace was always trying to improve safety. Seventy-six percent of workers agreed they always had a say in

decisions that affected their Health and Safety.

The statement that had the highest proportion of workers responding in a negative way was about the boss

sometimes saying nothing when he/she saw a worker taking a short cut or risk. Here, nearly one in five workers

(18%) agreed that this sometimes happened in their workplace.

Those workers who had experienced a serious harm issue or incident provided less positive ratings on seven of

the eight responsive dialogue indicators. The largest variation was with respect to bosses and workers working

46

together to make sure everyone is safe at work (59% of those who had experienced an issue/incident agreed

that this happened compared with 76% of those who had not had an issue/incident).

When employers’ responses are compared with workers, as was the case with the leadership indicators

discussed in the previous section, employers again had a more favourable view of responsive dialogue. The

largest variation was between the proportion of workers who were confident their bosses would totally support

them if they suggested stopping work due to a possible hazard (66%) and the proportion of employers who

stated their business would totally support a worker in this scenario (89%). Some 15% of workers disagreed that

this would be the case while others were uncertain, suggesting that employers may need to reinforce this

message more strongly to their workers.

There were also reasonably large variations in relation to the boss encouraging workers to speak up if they felt

something was unsafe, as well as in relation to workers being encouraged to come up with new ideas on how to

make workplaces safer.

3.4.1 Comparison of workers’ and employers’ perceptions of responsive dialogue attributes

RESPONSIVE DIALOGUE ATTRIBUTES WORKERS EMPLOYERS % DIFFERENCE(Workers cf. Employers)

I would worry I would get into trouble if I told my boss I had a near miss (% disagree)

79% - -

I always have a say in decisions that affect my health and safety (W),Workers are always involved in decisions affecting their health and safety (E)

76% 78% +2

My boss and the workers work together to make sure everyone is safe at work (W), Management and workers work in partnership to ensure everyone is safe at work (E)

73% 91% +18

My boss encourages us to speak up if we feel something is unsafe (W), Our business encourages our workers to speak up if they feel something is unsafe (E)

72% 93% +21

My boss would totally support me if I suggested we stop work because of a possible hazard (W), Our business would totally support a worker who suggested work should be stopped because of a possible risk (E)

66% 89% +23

My boss encourages us to come up with ideas for how to make our work safer (W), Our business encourages the workers to come up with new or better ways to do things that will make our work safer (E)

66% 86% +20

My boss sometimes says nothing when he/she sees a worker taking a shortcut or risk (% disagree)

64% - -

Everyone from the boss down is always trying to improve safety (W), Everyone at this business values ongoing safety improvements in this business (E)

59% 71% +12

Base: Workers from the 4 Risk Sectors excluding doesn’t apply (n=1557-2275)Base: Employers from the 4 Risk sectors (n=1349-1353)


47

When sectors were compared across responsive dialogue attributes, as a general observation workers in the

Forestry and Commercial Fishing sectors tended to have more favourable perceptions, particularly when

compared with workers in the Manufacturing and ‘Other’ sectors. For example:

83% of Forestry workers agreed that everyone worked together to ensure safety, compared with 70% of

workers in Manufacturing and 66% in the ‘Other’ sector

A higher proportion of workers in Commercial Fishing felt their bosses encouraged them to come up

with innovative ways to improve safety (76%), compared with just 56% of workers in the ‘Other’ sector.

While employers across all sectors generally had favourable perceptions of their businesses across all the

responsive dialogue indicators, this was particularly the case among Forestry employers. The largest difference

was observed in relation to the statement that everyone in the business valued ongoing safety improvements,

where 86% of Forestry employers compared with 67% of Agriculture employers agreed that this was the case.

48

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

In the Construction sector, the same patterns as those observed across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors

are evident. Namely, that most workers had generally favourable perceptions relating to responsive dialogue in

their workplace and that, for comparable attributes, an even higher proportion of employers than workers

generally had favourable perceptions.

While most workers within all sub-groups were generally positive, there were relatively larger pockets of

workers with unfavourable views among:

Workers who had experienced a serious harm issue/incident in the previous 12 months; for example,

30% felt they would not be supported if they suggested stopping work because of a possible hazard (cf.

12% of those who had had no incident), 20% felt that the boss and workers did not work together to

make sure everyone was safe (cf. 7% without an incident) and 19% felt they were not encouraged to

speak up if something was unsafe (cf. 6%)

Workers in Auckland, who were more likely to agree that their boss sometimes said nothing when they

saw a worker taking a shortcut or risk (28% cf. 20% overall)

Workers in Canterbury not working on the rebuild – 24% felt safety was not an ongoing focus from the

top down compared with 11% of those working on the Canterbury rebuild.

3.4.2 Comparisons of workers and employers’ views on responsive dialogue attributes: Workers and Employers in Construction

Base: Workers from Construction excluding doesn’t apply (n=379-612)Base: Employers from Construction (344-346)


RESPONSIVE DIALOGUE ATTRIBUTES WORKERS EMPLOYERS

I would feel confident to approach the boss/site supervisor on the site I am working on now about a health and safety issue

88% -

I always have a say in decisions that affect my health and safety (W), Workers are always involved in decisions affecting their health and safety (E)

79% 77%

I would worry I would get into trouble if I told my boss I had a near miss (% disagree) 77% -

My boss and the workers work together to make sure everyone is safe at work (W), Management and workers work in partnership to ensure everyone is safe at work (E)

73% 92%

My boss encourages us to speak up if we feel something is unsafe (W), Our business encourages our workers to speak up if they feel something is unsafe (E)

73% 96%

My boss would totally support me if I suggested we stop work because of a possible hazard (W), Our business would totally support a worker who suggested work should be stopped because of a possible risk (E)

68% 91%

My boss encourages us to come up with ideas for how to make our work safer (W), Our business encourages the workers to come up with new or better ways to do things that will make our work safer (E)

67% 86%

My boss sometimes says nothing when he/she sees a worker taking a shortcut or risk (% disagree)

62% -

Everyone from the boss down is always trying to improve safety (W), Everyone at this business values ongoing safety improvements in this business (E)

55% 77%

49

Employers across the Construction sector were predominantly consistently positive in their responses. The most

notable exception was that employers with workers currently on 10 or more sites not owned by the business

were less likely to agree that their business would totally support a worker who suggested work should be

stopped because of a possible risk (77% cf. 91% overall).

50

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

Behaviours Demonstrating Responsive Dialogue

Respondents were asked how consistently each of a number of behaviours was followed in their workplace.

These were behaviours that demonstrated open and responsible dialogue was taking place; Health and Safety

risks being discussed in an open and helpful way, and serious harm incidents, near misses and hazards being

reported (from worker to other workers, from workers to management, and from management back to other

workers).

The following chart illustrates the proportion of workers and employers who felt each behaviour occurred most

or all of the time. (This analysis is only based on those workers for whom each question applied; for example,

the question concerning workmates was only answered by those who worked with others).

As can be seen, employers were considerably more likely than workers to consider that workers in their business

were engaging in each type of behaviour most of the time or always. The proportion of workers who considered

each type of behaviour occurred in their workplace at least most of the time ranged from 65% to 74%, indicating

considerable room for improvement (particularly since the proportion that considered each behaviour always

occurred was considerably lower). Among employers, the range was from 74% to 89%.

The most common behaviour, cited by both employers and workers, was that things putting Health and Safety at

risk were discussed in an open and helpful way.

While 74% of employers believed their workers reported hazards, near misses and serious harm incidents to

management at least most of the time, the comparative proportion among workers was lower at 65%,

suggesting that employers may be unaware of a significant proportion of the Health and Safety risks and

incidents that occur in their businesses. This appears most prevalent in the Construction sector, where one in

three workers stated that workers reporting these events to management happened only half the time or less

often.

51

3.4.3 Proportion indicating responsive dialogue behaviours occurred most/all the time: Workers and Employers

When sectors were compared, it was evident that:

Each of these four positive behaviours was most common in the Forestry sector, among both workers

and employers. For example, in this sector 85% of workers and 98% of employers felt that things that

put Health and Safety at risk were discussed in an open and helpful way most/all the time

The responses of workers in the Manufacturing and ‘Other’ sectors indicated that these behaviours

were less common in these sectors.

Q: How often does each happen in your workplace/business (never, less than half the time, half the time, most of the time, always, don’t know)

29%

47%

26%

52%

45%

36%

43%

37%

ALWAYS MOSTLY

WORKERS EMPLOYERSTHINGS THAT PUT HEALTH AND SAFETY AT RISK ARE DISCUSSED IN AN OPEN AND HELPFUL WAY

WORKERS REPORT HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND ACCIDENTS

TO WORKMATES

MANAGEMENT REPORTS HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND

ACCIDENTS TO WORKERS

WORKERS REPORT HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND ACCIDENTS TO BOSSES OR SUPERVISORS

23%

36%

23%

41%

42%

34%

46%

33%74%

70%

70%

65%

NET

89%

69%

83%

74%

NET

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors excluding not applicable (n=1267-1323)

Base: Workers from the 4 risk sectors excluding not applicable (n=2056-2138)

MOSTLY ALWAYS

52

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

In the Construction sector, over seven in ten workers (73%) indicated that Health and Safety risks were

discussed in an open and helpful way at least most of the time. Similar proportions also believed that workers

(70%) and management (69%) alerted workers to risks and accidents at least most of the time.

3.4.4 Proportion indicating responsive dialogue behaviours occurred most – all the time: Construction Workers and Employers

The consistency with which workers reported hazards, near misses and accidents to bosses was lower than the

other actions considered. While 61% of workers felt that this happened most or all of the time, a third (34%)

indicated it happened infrequently (half the time or less often). The types of Construction workers more likely to

indicate that workers alerted bosses infrequently were those working 51 or more hours per week (46%), those

who had worked on five or more sites in the last three months (41%), plumbers (53%) and those who had

experienced a serious harm incident (46%) or near miss (50%). Those who had experienced a serious harm

incident or near miss were also more likely to report the other three behaviours happened only half the time or

less often.

Construction workers working with mobile plant were more likely to feel workers alerted workmates to hazards

infrequently (36% cf. 25% overall), while builders were more likely to feel management alerted workers

infrequently (35% cf. 27% overall).

As in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall, Construction employers were more likely to believe

responsive dialogue behaviours occurred most or all of the time. Notable differences among Construction

employers include:

Those in excavation businesses were more likely to feel workers reported hazards, near misses and

accidents to bosses only half the time or less often (46% cf. 26% overall).

26%

45%

27%

48%

45%

37%

43%

40%

ALWAYS MOSTLY

WORKERS EMPLOYERSTHINGS THAT PUT HEALTH AND SAFETY AT RISK ARE DISCUSSED IN AN OPEN AND HELPFUL WAY

WORKERS REPORT HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND ACCIDENTS

TO WORKMATES

MANAGEMENT REPORTS HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND

ACCIDENTS TO WORKERS

WORKERS REPORT HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND ACCIDENTS TO BOSSES OR SUPERVISORS

21%

33%

21%

39%

40%

36%

48%

34%

NET

88%

70%

82%

71%

NET

Q: How often does each happen in your workplace/business (never, less than half the time, half the time, most of the time, always, don’t know)

Base: Employers from Construction excluding not applicable (n=334-343)

Base: Workers from Construction excluding not applicable (n=564-581)

73%

70%

69%

61%

MOSTLY ALWAYS

53

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

3.5 PARTICIPATORY STRUCTURES

Along with good Health and Safety leadership and an environment of responsive dialogue, having formal,

participatory structures in place, to help ensure safety issues are not overlooked and that workers’ voices are

heard, is a very important component of a safer workplace.

The following chart illustrates the proportions of workers and employers in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk

sectors who believed each of a number of formal avenues to be in place in their workplace or business.

(Workers’ results are based on just those workers employed by a business and exclude the self-employed).

3.5.1 Participatory structures in place: Workers and Employers

Eight in ten workers indicated that their workplace had at least one of these formal structures in place. Regular

team meetings with Health and Safety as an agenda item and/or regular meetings focussed specifically on

Health and Safety were the most common structures in place. Forty-three percent of workers indicated they had

an elected Health and Safety representative and 14% of workers had been given a Health and Safety mentor.

Seventeen percent of workers did not think any of these structures were in place in their workplace. This

proportion ranged from 3% among Forestry workers to 32% among Agriculture workers. The Forestry sector was

particularly strong in having participatory structures in place, especially on having regular Health and Safety

meetings (85%) and regular formal safety audits (76%). Workers in the Manufacturing sector were more likely

Base: Workers from 4 Risk Sectors excluding self-employed (n=1913)Base: Employers from 4 Risk Sectors (n=1343-1351)Q: Which, if any, of these, happen at your workplace/does your business have?

Note: Employers’ responses on “Formal Safety Audits are carried out regularly” come from a separate question. Level of agreement (5-point agreement scale) with statement: “Formal safety audits at regular intervals are a normal part of our business” (% Agree or Strongly Agree)

51%

50%

44%

43%

38%

35%

14%

17%

3%

47%

36%

29%

26%

35%

12%

23%

22%

HEALTH AND SAFETY IS A REGULAR TEAM MEETING ITEM

REGULAR HEALTH AND SAFETY MEETINGS

A REGULAR SYSTEM FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

WE HAVE AN ELECTED HEALTH AND SAFETY REPRESENTATIVE

FORMAL SAFETY AUDITS ARE CARRIED OUT REGULARLY

THERE IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE IN WORKPLACE

I HAVE H&S MENTOR/ FORMAL MENTOR SYSTEM

NONE OF THESE

DON'T KNOW

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

54

than all other sectors to have a Health and Safety committee (63%) and/or an elected Health and Safety rep

(62%) as well as a noticeboard for Health and Safety information (57%).

As would be expected, partly explaining these sector differences, there was a very strong relationship between

business size and formal participatory structures being in place. The larger the business considered in terms of

numbers of employees, the higher the likelihood that each of the structures would be in place.

When large businesses of 100 or more employees were considered, the great majority of employers (between

83% and 95%) indicated that each structure was in place in their business. While still considerably more

prominent in these large businesses compared to smaller businesses, the structures that were less widespread

in these large businesses were regular formal safety audits being carried out (73%) and having a formal

mentoring system in place (49%).

55

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

In the Construction sector, 13% of workers and 14% of employers indicated there were no formal Health and

Safety structures in their workplaces, fewer than in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall (17% of

workers and 21% of employers).

3.5.2 Participatory structures in place: Construction Workers and Employers

Construction workers particularly likely to indicate there were formal structures in their workplaces were those

working in large companies of 100 or more people, those in Canterbury, those who managed or supervised

three or more workers, those working with migrant workers, those whose boss was only on site some to half of

the time and those working in heavy and civil engineering and/or land development and site preparation.

Construction employers (but not workers) who had experienced a serious harm incident were particularly likely

to indicate there were formal structures in their workplaces, as were those with six or more contractors and

those employing migrant workers.

The most prevalent formal system in Construction was Health and Safety as an agenda item at regular team

meetings, with 57% of workers and 59% of employers indicating that this happened. This system was in place in

a higher proportion of businesses employing Kiwi workers to help with the rebuild (74%), those employing

migrant workers (74%) and those with six or more contractors (79%).

Base: Workers from Construction excluding self-employed (n=486) Base: Employers from Construction (n=343-346)

Q: Which, if any, of these, happen at your workplace/does your business have?

Note: Employers’ responses on “Formal Safety Audits are carried out regularly” come from a separate question. Level of agreement (5-point agreement scale) with statement: “Formal safety audits at regular intervals are a normal part of our business” (% Agree or Strongly Agree)

57%

56%

48%

46%

40%

35%

13%

13%

3%

59%

52%

29%

32%

43%

13%

27%

13%

HEALTH AND SAFETY IS A REGULAR TEAM MEETING ITEM

REGULAR HEALTH AND SAFETY MEETINGS

WE HAVE AN ELECTED HEALTH AND SAFETY REPRESENTATIVE

A REGULAR SYSTEM FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

FORMAL SAFETY AUDITS ARE CARRIED OUT REGULARLY

THERE IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE IN WORKPLACE

I HAVE H&S MENTOR/FORMAL MENTOR SYSTEM

NONE OF THESE

DON'T KNOW

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

56

Employers whose main business was excavation or working with mobile plant were particularly likely to have

regular Health and Safety meetings (both 72%), as were those with six or more contractors (82%) and those

employing migrant workers (73%).

It is important to note that all these variations will be influenced strongly by size of business. Within

Construction, as across all four high-risk sectors, large businesses were far more likely to have formal structures

in place.

57

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

Training

Another important avenue for ingraining and formalising Health and Safety is via training. Across the four

WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 45% of workers had received formal Health and Safety training in the past 12

months, while 33% had received training but not within the past 12 months and 23% had never had any formal

training.

3.5.3 Last time formal training on Health and Safety received: Workers

As might be expected, younger workers aged 18-24 years (57%) and more of those with less than two years’

experience in the industry (61%) had received formal training in the past 12 months. Recent formal training was

much less common among self-employed people (19%) or those working for small businesses of five or fewer

employees (32%).

27 %

17 %

16 %

17 %

23 %

IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS

6 - 12 MONTHS AGO

13 MONTHS - 3 YEARS AGO

MORE THAN 3 YEARS AGO

I'VE NEVER HAD FORMAL TRAINING


Q: When was last time you had formal training on health and safety (e.g. a course, online training, induction training)?

58

As can be seen in the chart following, in the Agriculture sector a much smaller proportion of workers (22%) had

received formal training over the last 12 months while the proportion was highest in Construction at 59%.

3.5.4 Proportion that received formal training on Health and Safety in the last 12 months: Workers

Employers were asked to identify the proportion of their workers who had received some formal Health and

Safety training in the past 12 months. Over four in ten (41%) employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk

sectors stated that at least half of their workers had received training in this time period, including 21% where

all workers had received formal training. Thirty-nine percent of employers thought none of their employees had

received formal training in the previous 12 months.

3.5.5 Proportion of staff that had formal training in the last 12 months: Employers

Base: Workers (Agriculture, n=596; Construction, n=615; Forestry, n=376; Manufacturing, n=704; Commercial Fishing, n=503; Other sector, n=913)

Q: When was last time you had formal training on health and safety (e.g. a course, online training, induction training)?

39%

46%

48%

53%

59%

22%AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors (n=1351)

Q: In last 12 months, what proportion of your workers have had formal health and safety training (e.g. training course, online training, induction)?

39 %

14 %

5 %

15 %

21 %

6 %

NONE

SOME, BUT LESS THAN HALF

HALF

MOST OF THEM

ALL

DON'T KNOW

59

The types of businesses more likely to have provided formal Health and Safety training to at least half their

workers in the past 12 months were businesses with workers working across multiple sites not owned by the

business itself and larger businesses, particularly those with 100 or more employees. Just 34% of small business

with fewer than six employees had provided formal training to at least half their staff.

The following chart illustrates the proportion of businesses in each sector where at least half of the staff had

received some formal Health and Safety training in the past 12 months. As can be seen, formal training occurred

most often in the Construction, Forestry and Commercial Fishing sectors.

3.5.6 Proportion of businesses where at least half the staff have had formal training in the last 12 months: Employers


Q: In last 12 months, what proportion of your workers have had formal health and safety training (e.g. training course, online training, induction)?

26%

54%

36%

56%

58%

31%AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

EMPLOYERS

60

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

As mentioned earlier, formal Health and Safety training was more prevalent in Construction than in the other

WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, with 59% of Construction workers having received formal training in the past 12

months and 58% of Construction employers having at least half of the staff receiving formal training in the past

12 months.

The Construction workers who were most likely to have received formal training in this time period were those

working in Canterbury on the rebuild (85%), those whose boss was on site some to half of the time (73%), those

supervising three or more workers (69%), those working in heavy and civil engineering construction (73%)

and/or those working with mobile plant (72%).

The provision of formal training was more prevalent among employers employing migrant workers (75% had at

least half their staff receiving formal training) and among electricians (84%).

61

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

3.6 LEVERS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY IN BUSINESSES

What a business does in terms of Health and Safety is influenced by a number of different drivers. While many

businesses will be influenced by a very strong and genuine concern for the welfare of workers, other drivers will

also come into play to a greater or lesser extent. For example, some businesses may be worried about the

damage to their reputation of a poor Health and Safety record, others might be motivated by a desire to attract

and retain good staff.

In the survey, employers were asked to identify the extent to which each of the following aspects influenced

what their business did in terms of Health and Safety. A 5-point scale was provided (no influence, slight

influence, moderate influence, strong influence, very strong influence). The following chart illustrates the

proportion of employers from the four WorkSafe NZ risk sectors who stated they were strongly or very strongly

influenced by each aspect.

3.6.1 Proportion strongly or very strongly influenced by each driver of Health and Safety: Employers

As can be seen, after concern for the workers, the cost to the business in terms of loss of productivity was the

next strongest influence on a business’s focus and actions relating to Health and Safety. Nearly two thirds of

businesses were strongly influenced by a desire to avoid being fined or prosecuted and a similar proportion was

concerned about damage to the business’s reputation of a poor Health and Safety record.

88%

73%

64%

62%

58%

54%

43%

A VERY STRONG CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE WORKERS

THE COST TO THE BUSINESS IN TERMS OF PRODUCTIVITY IF WE HAVE SERIOUS HARM INCIDENTS

TO AVOID BEING FOUND AT FAULT, FINED OR PROSECUTED

THE DAMAGE TO OUR BUSINESS'S REPUTATION IF WE HAVE A POOR HEALTH AND SAFETY RECORD

A GOOD HEALTH AND SAFETY RECORD HELPING ATTRACT AND RETAIN GOOD STAFF

COMPANIES WHO SUB-CONTRACT US OR USE OUR PRODUCTS/SERVICES REQUIRE GOOD HEALTH AND

SAFETY PRACTICES

A GOOD HEALTH AND SAFETY RECORD HELPING THE BUSINESS WIN CONTRACTS

Base: Employers from 4 Risk sectors (n=1335-1348)

Q: How strongly does each of the following aspects influence what your business does in terms of health and safety (5-point scale of no influence, slight, moderate, strong, very strong influence)

62

The following table illustrates the three strongest (very strong or strong) influences on business practice in each

of the sectors.

3.6.2 Three strongest influences on business practice: Employers

As can be seen:

The damage to reputation of a poor Health and Safety record was a stronger influence for employers in

the Construction and Forestry sectors

A good Health and Safety record helping to win contracts was the third most prevalent influence for

Forestry employers

The Commercial Fishing sector was the one sector where attraction and retention of staff appeared in the

three most prevalent influences

A desire to avoid being found at fault, fined or prosecuted was more frequently in the top three influences

of employers in the Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors.



FORESTRY(n=267-268)



OTHER(n=316-320)

1 89%Concern for welfare of workers

89%Concern for welfare of workers





2 72%Cost to business in productivity

79%Damage to reputation


70%Cost to business in productivity



3 63%

Avoiding being at fault, fined or prosecuted


83%

Good record helps the business win contracts

58%Avoiding being at fault, fined or prosecuted

68%

Good record helps attract and retain staff


Base: Employers


63

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

As was the case across all sectors, the strongest influence on employers’ Health and Safety practices in the

Construction sector was a strong concern for the welfare of the workers. Damage to the business’s reputation

from a poor Health and Safety record and cost to the business in terms of loss of productivity in the event of a

serious harm incident were also major influences in the sector, while 69% were strongly influenced by wanting

to avoid being found at fault, fined or prosecuted.

3.6.3 Proportion strongly or very strongly influenced by each driver of Health and Safety: Construction Employers

While the rank order shown in the chart above was relatively consistent across various types of Construction

businesses, some variations are:

A higher proportion of Construction businesses with six or more contractors were strongly motivated by

concern about damage to the business’s reputation from a poor Health and Safety record (93%) and the

cost of lost productivity in the event of a serious harm incident (89%)

More businesses with migrant workers were also strongly motivated by concern about damage to the

business’s reputation from a poor Health and Safety record (92%), as well as by companies who sub-

contract them or use their products or services requiring them to have good practices (80%)

A higher proportion of those businesses whose work involved working on sites they didn’t personally

own or lease were more strongly motivated by a good Health and Safety record helping them attract

and retain good staff (74%)

A higher proportion of female employers were influenced by wanting to avoid being found at fault, fined

or prosecuted (83% cf. 65% of male employers).

89%

79%

76%

69%

66%

62%

59%

A VERY STRONG CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE WORKERS

THE DAMAGE TO OUR BUSINESS'S REPUTATION IF WE HAVE A POOR HEALTH AND SAFETY RECORD

THE COST TO THE BUSINESS IN TERMS OF PRODUCTIVITY IF WE HAVE SERIOUS HARM INCIDENTS

TO AVOID BEING FOUND AT FAULT, FINED OR PROSECUTED

THE COMPANIES WHO SUB-CONTRACT US OR WHO USE OUR PRODUCTS OR SERVICES REQUIRE GOOD HEALTH

AND SAFETY PRACTICES

A GOOD HEALTH AND SAFETY RECORD HELPING ATTRACT AND RETAIN GOOD STAFF

A GOOD HEALTH AND SAFETY RECORD HELPING THE BUSINESS WIN CONTRACTS



64

SECTION 4:

KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING

65

4 KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.1 PERCEPTIONS OF RISK

Perceived risk compared with other industries

Respondents were asked to compare the risk of people getting seriously hurt in their industry with that of other

industries, using a 5-point scale ranging from much lower risk (rated 1) through to much higher risk (rated 5).

As shown in the chart below, the Forestry sector had the most awareness of the higher level of risk the sector

faced, while the Manufacturing sector had the least awareness. As a general observation, a higher percentage of

workers than employers in each sector identified their industry as being a higher-risk industry, the exception to

this being Agriculture.

4.1.1 Proportion considering risk of getting seriously hurt in their industry is higher/much higher than other industries: Workers and Employers

Perceived risk of serious injury in own workplace

Workers were asked how they rated the risk of themselves or someone they worked with getting seriously hurt

at work in the upcoming 12 months, while employers were asked the question in relation to someone in their

business getting seriously hurt. They responded via a 5-point scale ranging from very low risk to very high risk.

Just 17% of workers and 6% of employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors responded that they

saw at least a moderate level of risk that such an incident might occur (3-5 on the 5-point scale). Forestry

11%

43%

31%

81%

52%

56%

15%

51%

39%

85%

62%

50% AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Q: How does the risk of someone getting seriously hurt in your industry compare with other industries (5-point scale from much lower to much higher)

Base: Workers (Agriculture, n=595; Construction, n=612; Forestry,

n=369; Manufacturing, n=698; Commercial Fishing, n=501; Other sector, n=913)

Base: Employers(Agriculture, n=376; Construction, n=344; Forestry, n=268; Manufacturing, n=358; Commercial Fishing, n=134; Other sector, n=321)

66

workers were the group seeing the greatest risk, with 27% feeling there was some likelihood either they or a

workmate would get seriously hurt in the next 12 months. A higher level of risk was also perceived by

Manufacturing workers (26%).

It is evident that, across the board, a much higher proportion of workers than employers in each sector

perceived some risk of a serious harm incident occurring to themselves or a workmate. This suggests that some

employers may under-estimate the risk in their businesses; workers’ responses may be a better indication of risk

given they are responding on the basis of their own behaviour and/or that of their workmates.

4.1.2 Proportion perceiving a moderate/high/very high risk of serious injury occurring in own workplace/business in next 12 months: Workers and Employers

Some patterns to emerge among sub-groups were:

While still very much a minority view, there was a greater perceived risk among workers working

alongside migrant workers (24%) than among those who did not (15%)

A higher proportion of young workers aged 18-24 years (26%) and Māori workers (28%) perceived a risk

The businesses perceiving the greatest risk that a worker could get seriously hurt were larger businesses,

particularly those with multiple sites.

Just over a third of those workers who had themselves had a recent serious harm or near miss incident felt there

was some likelihood that they or a workmate could have a serious harm incident in the next 12 months.

3%

4%

4%

8%

8%

6%

12%

19%

26%

27%

18%

11% AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Q: How would you rate the risk that you or someone you work with /someone in your business will get seriously hurt at work in the next 12 months (5-pont scale from very low risk to very high risk)




67

Feelings of safety at work

Workers were asked how safe they felt at work overall and provided their responses via a 4-point scale of very

safe, safe, unsafe and very unsafe. This question was based on a question included in the New Zealand General

Social Survey (NZGSS) conducted by Statistics NZ.

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 94% of workers indicated that they felt safe at work, including

48% who felt very safe. Just 5% professed to feel unsafe at work.

4.1.3 Feelings of safety at work: Workers

This result is very similar to the result reported in the NZGSS in 2012, where 50% of respondents who had

worked in the seven days prior to the survey being undertaken replied they felt very safe at work, 47% felt safe

and 3% unsafe. This indicates that workers in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors do not feel any more

unsafe than workers in general.

When this result was analysed by sector, perhaps a surprising result was that more workers in Manufacturing

attested to feeling unsafe at work (9%). On the other hand, workers in Agriculture were most likely to consider

they felt very safe at work (57%).

While very much a minority, larger pockets of workers in businesses employing 100 or more employees felt

unsafe at work (9%). This was also the case among those working with migrant workers day to day (9%). Finally,

those who had personally had a serious harm incident or near miss were less likely to indicate they felt very safe

(33% cf. 52% of all workers in the four high-risk sectors).

NET UNSAFE:5%

48 %

46 %

3 % 2 %1 %

VERY SAFE SAFE UNSAFE VERY UNSAFE DON'T KNOW


Q: Overall, how safe do you feel at work?

WORKERS

NET SAFE:94%

68

4.1.4 Feelings of safety at work: Workers

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Overall, those in the Construction sector perceived lower levels of risk of serious harm than those in the Forestry

sector but higher levels than those in the other WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors.

While three in five Construction workers (62%) acknowledged that the risk of getting seriously hurt in the

Construction industry was higher than average, just 18% perceived at least some risk that they or a workmate

could get seriously injured in the following 12 months. While a small proportion of Construction workers (5%)

suggested they felt unsafe at work, this proportion increased among those that had experienced a serious harm

issue or incident (11%) and among those working in Canterbury but not on the rebuild (11%).

The proportion of employers acknowledging that the risk of getting seriously hurt in the Construction industry

was higher than average was lower than the proportion of workers (52% compared with 62% ) and just 8%

perceived some risk of serious injury in their business in the following 12 months.

These results suggest that a possible risk of complacency among Construction workers and employers, who

acknowledge the risk in the industry but who do not translate this risk into their own workplace or business.

Base: Workers Q: Overall, how safe do you feel at work?

AGRICULTURE(n=598)

CONSTRUCTION(n=615)

FORESTRY(n=377)



OTHER SECTOR(n=917)

% VERY SAFE 57% 47% 47% 36% 46% 61%

% SAFE 40% 47% 45% 54% 48% 34%

% UNSAFE & VERY UNSAFE 3% 5% 6% 9% 5% 5%

69

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.2 KNOWLEDGE OF RISKS

Workers and employers must be aware of what constitutes the greatest threats to Health and Safety in their

workplaces in order to be vigilant and keep them or their employees safe at work.

Respondents were asked to choose what they considered to be the main causes of serious harm (they were

asked to select up to three from a list provided) to workers in their industry. They were also provided with a list

of long-term (defined as lasting six months or more) health problems and asked to identify up to three problems

they knew people working in their industry were more at risk of getting.

Across all sectors, almost all workers and employers were able to identify one or more main causes of serious

injury and one or more of the main long-term health problems. The lowest levels of knowledge were in relation

to the most common long-term health problems, where 12% of Manufacturing employers and 10% of employers

in the Commercial Fishing sector were unsure of the long-term health problems most likely to affect workers in

their industries.

As the lists of possible serious harms that were provided to respondents were sector-specific, detailed analysis is

carried out at a sector level only in the sector-specific reports.

70

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Main causes of serious injury

The chart below illustrates that workers and employers in Construction had a similar understanding of the

principal causes of Construction workers getting seriously hurt. Serious harm from slips, trips and falls was most

frequently mentioned in this context, followed by falling from a height and harm from manual handling.

Just 4% of employers and 2% of workers had insufficient knowledge to identify any prominent causes.

4.2.1 Proportion identifying each cause of serious injury as one of the three most prominent in their industry (%): Construction Workers and Employers

Mention of the risk of serious harm from slips, trips and falls was highest among workers in heavy and civil

engineering construction (74%), while those working in finishing were particularly likely to mention falling from a

height (70%), as were those working in exterior cladding (78%). Construction workers aged 35-44 years were

more likely to be aware of the risk of serious harm from manual handling (65%). Those working in heavy and civil

engineering construction (53%), large businesses with 100+ employees (also 53%), machinery operators (40%),

those whose boss was never on site (40%) and those working on the Canterbury rebuild (39%) were particularly

likely to be aware of the risk of injury when using or operating machinery or mobile plant.

Among employers, mention of the risk of injury from falling from a height was higher among those whose main

business was non-residential building construction (70%) and building completion services (72%). Those working

64%

59%

51%

29%

28%

11%

8%

2%

68%

57%

55%

32%

24%

7%

7%

4%

FROM SLIPS, TRIPS OR FALLS

FALLING FROM A HEIGHT

FROM MANUAL HANDLING (LIFTING, TWISTING)

WHEN USING/OPERATING MACHINERY/ MOBILE PLANT

FROM HANDHELD TOOLS / HANDHELD POWER TOOLS

FROM REPETITIVE TASKS

FROM ELECTRIC SHOCK

DON'T KNOW

WORKERS EMPLOYERSBase: Workers from Construction (n=615)Base: Employers from Construction (n=345)

Q: As far as you know, how are people working in your industry most likely to get hurt at work (select up to three)?

71

in building completion services were also more likely to mention the risk of injury from manual handling (66%),

as were machinery operators (68%). Employers in the specialist trades were particularly likely to mention the

risk of injury from handheld tools (31%).

Long-term health problems

Again, virtually all workers and employers were able to identify at least one of the long-term health problems

Construction workers were at risk of getting. In the Construction sector, and in fact across all sectors with the

exception of the lower-risk ‘Other’ sector, the long-term health problem most commonly identified was body

wear and tear from manual labour over a number of years, cited by 79% of workers and 80% of employers. The

health problem mentioned by the second-highest proportion was hearing loss from working with loud noise

(mentioned by 66% of both workers and employers). Mention of other long-term health problems facing the

Construction industry was considerably lower, ranging from 23% of workers and 24% of employers aware of the

risk of OOS/Repetitive Strain Injury) to 5% of workers and 6% of employers aware of the risk of skin problems

like dermatitis or eczema.

4.2.2 Proportion identifying long-term health problems as one of the three most prominent in their industry: Construction Workers and Employers

Base: Workers from Construction (n=614)Base: Employers from Construction (n=345)

Q: As far as you know, what long-term health problems (lasting 6 months or more) are people working in your industry most at risk of getting (select up to three)?

79%

66%

23%

19%

17%

17%

15%

9%

7%

5%

3%

80%

66%

24%

18%

15%

15%

11%

8%

10%

6%

1%

5%

WEAR AND TEAR ON YOUR BODY FROM MANUAL LABOUR OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS E.G. BACK OR JOINT PAIN

HEARING LOSS FROM WORKING WITH LOUD NOISE

OOS / RSI (REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY)

EYE DAMAGE

DISEASE OR ILLNESS FROM EXPOSURE TO OR WORKING WITH CHEMICALS, SOLVENTS OR OTHER WORK MATERIALS (E.G.LEAD)

SKIN CANCER

STRESS RELATED OR MENTAL ILLNESS, SUCH AS ANXIETY OR DEPRESSION

ASBESTOSIS

BREATHING PROBLEMS LIKE ASTHMA

SKIN PROBLEMS LIKE DERMATITIS OR ECZEMA

NONE

DON'T KNOW

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

72

Knowledge of eye damage as a prominent long-term health problem in Construction was particularly prevalent

among workers aged 18-24 years (33%), those working below ground (36%) and those working in construction

services (34%). Those aged 18-24 years were also more likely than average to be aware of the risk of breathing

problems like asthma (20%).

Knowledge of the risk of skin cancer was more prevalent among those working 51 hours or more a week (26%)

and those working in land development and site preparation (28%), while knowledge of stress-related or mental

illness as a prominent long-term health problem in Construction was more prevalent among Māori workers

(28%) and those working in demolition (27%).

Among Construction employers, awareness of the long-term risk of breathing problems was higher among those

employing migrant workers (23%), while awareness of the risk of hearing loss from working with loud noise was

higher among interior fitters (83%) and those working in foundation and ground preparation (79%). Interior

fitters were also more likely to be aware of the risk of eye damage (33%).

While only 9% of Construction workers and 8% of employers overall mentioned asbestosis as one of the main

long-term health problems in the Construction sector, 25% of workers and 23% of employers involved in the

Canterbury rebuild mentioned this risk. Electricians were also more likely to mention asbestosis (19%).

73

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.3 PERCEPTIONS OF RESOURCES, CAPABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE TO DEAL WITH RISK

Resources and information

To do their jobs safely, workers must have the right tools and equipment for the job and they must also have the

right information.

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 84% of workers agreed that they had the tools and equipment

they needed to do their jobs safely. However, there was less agreement among workers that they were told

everything they needed to know to perform their jobs safely (67%). Employers had a rosier view of information

provision, with 84% agreeing that the workers and supervisors had all the information they needed to work

safely.

4.3.1 Level of agreement that have tools and equipment and information to do jobs safely: Workers and Employers

Workers in the Manufacturing sector were less likely to feel equipped with the tools and equipment they

needed (76% cf. 84% overall). Construction workers were slightly less likely to feel they were told everything

they needed to know to do their job safely (62% agreed cf. 67% overall) while Forestry workers felt most

informed (78% agreed).

Across the board, employers were positive about their workers being well-equipped, peaking among Forestry

(96% agreement) and Commercial Fishing (95% agreement). Like their workers, Forestry employers were most

likely to agree that their workers were well informed (92% agreement).

Base: Workers from 4 Risk sectors excluding doesn’t apply (n=2167-2247)

Base: Employers from 4 Risk sectors(n=1350-1353)

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

84%agree

I have the tools and equipment I need to do

my job safely

Everyone has the tools and/or equipment they need

to complete their work safely

89%agree

67%agree

I am told everything I need to know to do my job safely

Workers and supervisors have the information they

need to work safely

84% agree

Level of agreement with statement (5-point agreement scale)

74

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Workers and employers in Construction concurred that the appropriate tools and equipment were provided to

allow people to complete their work safely.

As was the case across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors generally, there was a lower level of agreement

among Construction workers than employers that people had the information needed to be able to work safely

(62% of workers and 84% of employers agreed that this was the case).

4.3.2 Level of agreement that have tools and equipment and information to do jobs safely: Construction

These findings were generally consistent across all sub-groups although there were a few exceptions:

Workers who managed or supervised three or more people and those whose boss was never on site

were less likely to agree they had the tools and equipment they needed to do their job safely (79% and

72% respectively)

Workers who had experienced a serious harm incident were less likely to agree they were told

everything they needed to know to do their job safely (52%)

Employers working in building installation services were more likely to disagree everyone had the tools

and equipment (13% cf. 4% overall) and the information they needed to work safely (12% cf. 4% overall).

Base: Workers from Construction excluding doesn’t apply (n=589-606)


WORKERS EMPLOYERS

85%agree

I have the tools and equipment I need to do

my job safely

Everyone has the tools and/or equipment they need to

complete their work safely

88%agree

62%agree

I am told everything I need to know to do my job safely

Workers and supervisors have the information they

need to work safely

84% agree

Level of agreement with statement (5-point agreement scale)

75

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

Knowledge and skills to deal with risk

Workers were asked the extent to which they felt confident that they had the knowledge and skills to keep

healthy and safe at work; specifically, how confident they felt that they knew how to report a hazard, near miss

or serious harm incident, that they had the knowledge and skills to keep safe at work and the knowledge and

skills to avoid long-term health problems from their work.

Only a small minority of workers expressed a lack of confidence in any of these areas and this was consistent

across sectors with some small variations:

Confidence in knowledge of how to report a hazard, near miss or serious harm incident was almost

universal among Forestry workers

Workers from Forestry and Commercial Fishing were particularly confident that they had the knowledge

and skills to keep themselves safe at work

A slightly lower proportion in each sector felt confident in their knowledge and skills to avoid long-term

health problems, particularly workers in Manufacturing and the ‘Other’ sectors.

Workers across all demographic groups were predominantly confident in their level of knowledge and skills.

Only a slightly higher proportion of younger workers aged 18-24 expressed any lack of confidence, with nearly

one in ten of these young workers indicating they were not confident about knowing how to report hazards,

near misses or serious harm incidents and not confident in their knowledge of long-term health problems.

4.3.3 Proportion who feel confident about their knowledge and skills: Workers



FORESTRY(n=366-375)


COMMERCIAL FISHING

(n=471-501)

OTHER SECTOR(n=858-912)

Know how to report a hazard, near miss or accident to bosses/workmates

86% 88% 97% 88% 91% 85%

Have knowledge and skills to keep safe at work

92% 93% 97% 91% 97% 88%

Have knowledge and skills to not get long-term health problems at work

81% 83% 84% 76% 82% 77%

Base: Workers (Statement 1 excludes Not Applicable)Q: How confident are you that… (5-point scale where 1= not at all confident and 5= very confident)

76

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.4 BEHAVIOUR AROUND RISK

Frequency with which risky situations occur

The previous section confirms that workers in the high-risk sectors believe that they personally have the

knowledge and skills to keep themselves safe while at work. However, too many serious harm incidents continue

to occur in New Zealand workplaces. Therefore, if workers’ assessment of their level of knowledge and skill is

accurate, workers must be behaving in ways, or being put in situations at work that result in serious harm issues

or incidents despite knowing the risk involved.

In the survey, workers were reminded of their anonymity before being asked the frequency with which they or

their workmates worked in each of a number of potentially risky ways. They answered using a scale of never,

hardly ever, from time to time, a lot. Employers were asked a corresponding question in relation to workers in

their business.

The following table illustrates the proportion of workers and employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk

sectors indicating each of these behaviours occurred from time to time or a lot. It is in rank order from most

common to least common, based on workers’ responses. So, the most common risk behaviour is working when

sick or injured (57% of workers) and the least common is being put at risk due to a machinery fault or

breakdown (16%).

Based on workers’ responses, the two most commonly occurring risky situations in workplaces were someone

working while sick or injured (57%) or when overtired (53%). Following these two situations, the next most

frequent were a worker making a mistake by being careless or distracted (43%) or taking a risk or short-cut to

save time (41%).

For all situations, a higher proportion of workers than employers felt each occurred at least from time to time in

their workplace. The occurrence felt by employers to be most prevalent was workers making a mistake by being

careless or distracted (38%).

77

4.4.1 Proportion indicating a risky behaviour occurs in their workplace from time to time or a lot: Workers and Employers

Only a minority of workers believed that each of the behaviours occurred a lot, with the highest proportions

being 14% of workers believing working while sick or injured happened a lot and 12% believing working while

overtired happened a lot.

Risky behaviours occurring from time to time/a lot were more frequently mentioned by the following sub-

groups of workers:

Workers in Gisborne (6 of the 13 risk behaviours were more common among workers in Gisborne than

among workers from the rest of the country in general)

Māori workers (8 of the risk 13 behaviours were more common)

Workers in the Manufacturing sector (10 of the 13 behaviours)

Workers working alongside migrant workers (10 of the 13 behaviours)

Workers in large businesses with 100 or more employees (12 of the 13 behaviours more common).

Perhaps of most significance was the finding that there was a strong relationship between whether or not

workers had experienced a serious harm issue/ incident or a near miss in the past 12 months and whether or not

they and/or their workmates had undertaken risky behaviours. The prevalence of all 13 risk behaviours was

% FROM TIME TO TIME OR A LOT WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Work when sick or injured 57% 29%

Work when they are overtired 53% 31%

Make a mistake by being careless or not having their mind on the job

43% 38%

Take a risk or short-cut on purpose (e.g. to save time) 41% 27%

Make a mistake from being under pressure by the boss to get the job done

31% 22%

Make a mistake because they have been working too long or too hard without a break

30% 11%

Get put at risk by working in conditions when work should have been stopped (e.g. bad weather, not enough people on the job)

26% 10%

Do a risky job that they don't have the right skills for 22% 7%

Get put at risk by something outside of their control (e.g. a freak accident)

20% 15%

Get put at risk from not having proper supervision 17% 6%

Get put at risk because our processes or ways we are told to do things are not safe

17% 6%

Work when hung-over or stoned 17% 6%

Get put at risk by a machinery or equipment fault or breakdown

16% 6%

Base: Workers from 4 Risk sectors (n=2266-2280)Base: Employers from 4 Risk sectors (n=1342-1349)

Q: How often does someone in your workplace/ your business…. (never, hardly ever, from time to time, a lot, don’t know)

78

greater among those that had experienced a serious harm issue than among those who had not. For example,

47% of those who experienced a serious harm incident indicated mistakes from being put under pressure by the

boss happened from time to time/a lot compared with 26% of those that hadn’t, while 52% who had

experienced a serious harm incident indicated they and/or workmates took risks or short cuts on purpose from

time to time/a lot compared with 38% who hadn’t experienced a harm.

The following table compares the three most common risk behaviours identified by workers by sector. As can be

seen, there was mostly consistency in the top three identified across sectors.

4.4.2 Three most common risk behaviours by sector (happen from time to time or a lot): Workers

There was more variation in the prevalence of the less common risk behaviours between sectors.

In Construction, working in adverse conditions, unsafe processes or ways of doing things, and working

under pressure from the boss to get things finished were more prominent relative to other sectors

In Forestry, working while hung-over or stoned, working in adverse conditions, and freak accidents were

mentioned more frequently

In Manufacturing, being put under pressure to get work finished, inadequate supervision and machinery

or equipment fault were more prominent

In Commercial Fishing, working too long without a break, working in adverse conditions and freak

accidents were more prominent.

The following table compares the three most common risk behaviours according to employers across sector.

Again, there was mostly consistency between sectors but unlike workers, where working while sick or injured

was most prevalent, workers being careless or distracted was higher up the rankings for employers.



FORESTRY(n=372-373)


COMMERCIAL FISHING

(n=495-498)

OTHER(n=908-915)

1 56%Work when sick/injured

57%Work when sick/injured


57%Work when they are overtired



2 54%Work when they are overtired





59%Work when theyare overtired

3 37%

Make a mistake by being careless

43%


49%


50%Make a mistake by being careless

43%


35%

Make a mistake because they have been working too long

Base: Workers Q: How often does someone in your workplace/ your business…. (never, hardly ever, from time to time, a lot, don’t know)

79

4.4.3 Three most common risk behaviours by sector (happen from time to time or a lot): Employers

In businesses with multiple sites, large businesses with 100 or more employees, businesses that employed

migrant workers and businesses where serious harm incidents or near misses have occurred, many of these risky

behaviours were more prevalent.

Base: EmployersQ: How often does someone in your workplace/ your business…. (never, hardly ever, from time to time, a lot, don’t know)



FORESTRY(n=267-269)


COMMERCIAL FISHING

(n=129-130)

OTHER(n=318-320)

1 42%Work when overtired

37%Being careless or not having mind on job



40% Work when overtired


2 36%

Beingcareless or not having mind on job

23%Work when overtired

33%Work when sick or injured




3 32%Take risk or short-cut on purpose

23%Being under pressure to get job done


27%Take risk or short-cut on purpose



80

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

As in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall, workers in Construction were most likely to identify people

working while sick or injured or when overtired as a prevalent risky behaviour, while making a mistake by being

careless or distracted was the most frequently-identified prevalent behaviour among employers in this sector.

As was the case generally across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, a higher proportion of workers than

employers felt each occurred at least from time to time in their workplace.

One in five workers and 15% of employers indicated that workers were put at risk by something outside their

control either from time to time or a lot.

4.4.4 Proportion indicating a risky behaviour occurs in their workplace from time to time or a lot: Construction Workers and Employers

Risky behaviours were more likely to be identified by the following sub-groups of Construction workers:

Those working with migrant workers

Those working 51 or more hours per week, who were particularly likely to identify overtiredness as an

issue

Those whose boss was never on site, who were particularly likely to identify overtiredness and making a

mistake from being put under pressure by the boss to get the job done as issues

Base: Workers from Construction (607-614)Base: Employers from Construction (n=342-345)

Q: How often does someone in your workplace/ your business…. (never, hardly ever, from time to time, a lot, don’t know)

% FROM TIME TO TIME OR A LOT WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Work when sick or injured 57% 23%

Work when they are overtired 50% 23%

Make a mistake by being careless or not having their mind on the job 43% 37%

Take a risk or short-cut on purpose (e.g. to save time) 42% 21%

Make a mistake from being under pressure by the boss to get the job done 36% 23%

Make a mistake because they have been working too long or too hard without a break

31% 10%

Get put at risk by working in conditions when work should have been stopped (e.g. bad weather, not enough people on the job)

31% 11%

Do a risky job that they don't have the right skills for 25% 5%

Get put at risk because our processes or ways we are told to do things are not safe

20% 6%

Get put at risk from not having proper supervision 20% 4%

Get put at risk by something outside of their control (e.g. a freak accident) 20% 15%

Work when hung-over or stoned 18% 5%

Get put at risk by a machinery or equipment fault or breakdown 15% 4%

81

Those who have had a serious harm or near miss experience; those who have experienced a serious

harm incident were particularly likely to identify working when sick or injured, doing a risky job without

the right skills, making mistakes from being careless or distracted or from being under pressure from the

boss to get the job done, taking a risk or short-cut on purpose and working when hung-over or stoned,

as issues

Those working somewhere with 100 or more employees at the workplace, who were particularly likely

to identify overtiredness, working when sick or injured and doing a risky job without the right skills as

issues

Those working in heavy and civil engineering construction, who were particularly likely to identify

overtiredness, and working too long or hard without a break as issues

Machinery operators, who were particularly likely to identify being put at risk by a machinery or

equipment fault or breakdown and working when overtired as issues

Manual labourers, who were more likely to mention taking a risk or short-cut on purpose and being put

at risk by machinery fault or breakdown.

Among Construction employers, those who had experienced a serious harm incident or near miss and those

working in pre-construction were particularly likely to indicate risky behaviours were more prevalent in the

workplace. In particular, employers in non-residential building construction, foundation and ground preparation

and exterior cladding were more likely to indicate workers taking a risk or short-cut on purpose to save time as a

risky behaviour taking place on their worksites.

82

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

Positive Actions

The following chart illustrates the consistency with which preventative actions are seen to be taken in

workplaces. Respondents were asked the frequency with which a number of actions took place, answering

through use of a 5-point scale (never, less than half the time, about half the time, most of the time, always).

For four of the five actions tested, almost all employers and between 86% to 90% of workers across the four

WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors indicated that these actions were taken most or all the time. The action taken less

consistently was fully checking machinery and equipment before use (76% of workers felt this occurred most or

all the time).

While these results seem encouraging, it is questionable whether ‘most of the time’ is good enough for these

actions. For example, just 45% of workers and 48% of employers believed that personal protective equipment

was always used when it should be. Action was seen to be always taken straight away when a potential hazard

was identified by just 50% of workers and 64% of employers.

4.4.5 Frequency with which positive Health and Safety behaviours occur in the workplace: Workers and Employers

96%

94%

97%

97%

88%

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

35%

47%

50%

45%

58%

41%

39%

37%

44%

32%

Base: Workers from 4 Risk sectors excluding Doesn’t apply (n=2187-2265)

90%

89%

87%

86%

76%

NET NET

Q: How often does each of the following happen in your workplace (never, less than half the time, about half the time, most of the time, always, don’t know)

SAFETY DEVICES ARE FITTED TO MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT

WHEN THEY SHOULD BE

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS USED WHEN IT

SHOULD BE

ACTION IS TAKEN STRAIGHT AWAY WHEN A POTENTIAL

HAZARD IS IDENTIFIED

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IS WELL MAINTAINED

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IS FULLY CHECKED BEFORE IT IS

USED

41%

64%

64%

48%

67%

47%

34%

33%

46%

29%

ALWAYS MOSTLY

Base: Employers from 4 Risk sectors excludingDoesn’t apply (n=1304-1343)

MOSTLY ALWAYS

83

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

The large majority of workers and employers in Construction believed that all the preventative actions tested were taken in their workplaces most or all of the time. However, workers aged 25-34 years and those who had experienced a near miss incident were less likely to state that the preventative actions were always taken, particularly that action was always taken straight away when a potential hazard was identified (25% of 25-34 year olds and 32% of those who had experienced a near miss incident, compared with 47% overall).

4.4.6 Frequency with which positive Health and Safety behaviours occur in the workplace: Construction Workers and Employers

Workers who had experienced a serious harm incident were particularly likely to state personal protective gear

was worn on only half or even less of the occasions that it should be (19% cf. 6% without an incident) and that

action was taken straight away when a hazard was identified on half or fewer occasions (26% vs. 9%). Those

whose boss was never on site were particularly likely to state that machinery and equipment was well

maintained only half the time or less often (25% cf. 14% overall).

Among employers, those with workers on 10 or more sites not owned by the business were less likely to state

the preventative actions were always taken, particularly that personal protective equipment was always used

when it should be (33% cf. 53% overall) and that machinery and equipment was always fully checked before use

(23% cf. 41%). Although almost all employers stated preventative actions were taken all or most of the time,

those working on the Canterbury rebuild were more likely to state some preventative actions were taken on half

or fewer occasions, particularly that machinery and equipment was fully checked before use only about half the

time or less often (25% cf. 13% overall).

Base: Workers from Construction excluding doesn’t apply (n=568-608)

Base: Employers from Construction excluding doesn’t apply (n=327-345)

41%

61%

68%

70%

53%

46%

35%

29%

27%

44%

ALWAYS MOSTLY

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

31%

43%

47%

56%

44%

41%

42%

39%

35%

47%92%

90%

86%

85%

72%

NET

97%

96%

97%

96%

87%

NET

Q: How often does each of the following happen in your workplace (never, less than half the time, about half the time, most of the time, always, don’t know)

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS USED WHEN IT SHOULD BE

SAFETY DEVICES ARE FITTED TO MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT WHEN

THEY SHOULD BE

ACTION IS TAKEN STRAIGHT AWAY WHEN A POTENTIAL HAZARD IS

IDENTIFIED

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IS WELL MAINTAINED

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IS FULLY CHECKED BEFORE IT IS USED

MOSTLY ALWAYS

84

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.5 SNAPSHOT OF OCCURRENCE OF, AND INTERVENTION AROUND, INCIDENTS (SERIOUS HARM,

NEAR MISSES, AND HAZARDS)

Occurrence of serious harm incidents and near misses While there are official statistics around the number of notified serious harm issues/injuries and fatalities, in this

survey we obtained an indication of the extent to which serious injuries, health issues and near misses occurred

from the perspective of the workers and employers themselves.

Respondents were shown a list of harms, designed around the official definition of serious harm from the

Employment Act 1992. The list was:

a health problem that resulted in permanent damage to your body (such as asthma, hearing loss),

a health problem that resulted in severe temporary damage to your body or made you temporarily very

unwell

a stress related or mental illness

an eye injury such as a chemical burn or penetrating wound

a bone fracture

an injury from crushing

a laceration or deep cut requiring stitches

a body part amputated

burns requiring medical attention

becoming unconscious

being in hospital for more than 48 hours due to being hurt or sick from work.

Workers were asked to mark all the harms they had personally had from their work in the 12 months prior to

interview. They were also asked to state how many times they had personally had a near miss where they could

have been seriously hurt at work in the past 12 months.

Employers were asked to mark all those harms that had happened to anyone working for their business while at

work in the past 12 months (including employees and contractors). They were then requested to state how

many incidents there had been in the past 12 months of this nature and how many of those incidents had been

reported to a government agency. Employers were also asked to state, to the best of their knowledge, the

number of times someone in their business had experienced a near miss where they could have been seriously

hurt at work in the past 12 months.

The following analysis needs to be interpreted on the basis that it is workers’ and employers’ perceptions of

whether they experienced each of the types of harms specified: the actual degree of harm in some cases may

not necessarily have qualified as serious harm for the purposes of the Act. Nevertheless, it provides some strong

indications of the extent of harms occurring and the level of under-reporting that might exist.

85

Workers

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 22% of workers stated that they had personally had one or more

of the harms shown, while 30% indicated that they had experienced one or more near misses.

4.5.1 Proportion had serious harm incident and/or near miss in past 12 months: Workers

Serious harm incidents were more likely to be mentioned by young workers under 24 years of age (29%), Māori

workers (31%), Asian workers (34%) and workers who worked an average of 51 hours or more per week (27%).

These groups were also more likely to have experienced a near miss.

The most common harms experienced were stress-related or mental illness (identified by 32% of the 22% who

stated they had had one or more of these harms), health problems resulting in severe temporary damage or

making them temporarily very unwell (26%), lacerations or deep cuts requiring stitches (21%) and permanent

health problems such as asthma (20%). While stress-related or mental illness is the most frequently mentioned

serious harm experienced, it is noteworthy that there appears to be a relationship between stress-related or

mental illness and other types of harms. Specifically, those who had experienced a stress-related or mental

illness were also more likely to have experienced another type of harm. (However, it is not possible to determine

whether the stress-related/ mental illness contributed to the other harms or whether the other harms

contributed to the stress-related/ mental illness).

When the sectors are compared in the table following, it can be seen that a higher proportion of Forestry

workers had had a near miss in the past 12 months compared with other sectors. While the proportion of

workers in the ‘Other’ sector that had experienced a serious harm issue/incident is perhaps surprising, a large

proportion of the serious harms cited by this sector were stress-related and mental health issues (65% of those

in the “Other” sector who had experienced a serious harm).

5 %

16 %

13 %

65 %

DON'T KNOW

ONE NEAR MISS

MORE THAN ONE

NONE

22%

SERIOUS HARM

INCIDENT


Q: In the last 12 months, which of the following have you had from your work?

Base: Workers from the 4 Risk sectors (n=2252)

Q: In the last 12 months, how many times have you personally had a near miss at work where you could have been seriously hurt?

NEAR MISS

86

4.5.2 Proportion had serious harm incident and/or near miss in past 12 months: Workers

Employers

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 28% of employers stated that at least one worker in their

business had been seriously harmed in the past 12 months. Twenty eight percent of employers had also had at

least one near miss incident in the previous 12 months, while 10% of employers stated that they didn’t know

whether any workers had had a near miss.

4.5.3 Incidence of serious harm and near misses in businesses: Employers

When those employers who cited a serious harm incident identified the type of incident, the most commonly

occurring types were very different from those cited by workers who felt they had experienced serious harm.

The most common incidents mentioned by employers were lacerations or deep cuts requiring stitches

(mentioned by 43% of those whose business had had an incident), followed by eye injuries (24%), bone fractures

(23%) and crushing injuries (17%). Stress-related or mental illness was mentioned by just 14% of these

employers compared with 32% of workers who experienced a serious harm incident. These findings suggest that

employers may be considerably less aware of the prevalence of work-related health problems among their

workers than of work-related injuries.

AGRICULTURE CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MANUFACTURINGCOMMERCIAL

FISHINGOTHER

% SERIOUS HARM INCIDENT 20% 20% 27% 27% 28% 21%

NEAR MISSES

% NONE 68% 64% 48% 64% 68% 79%

% ONE 14% 18% 19% 15% 14% 10%

% MORE THAN ONE 12% 14% 27% 15% 12% 8%

Base: Workers

Q: In the last 12 months, which of the following have you had from your work?(Agriculture, n=587; Construction, n=613; Forestry, n=371; Manufacturing, n=694; Commercial Fishing, n=495; Other sector, n=901)

Q: In the last 12 months, how many times have you personally had a near miss at work where you could have been seriously hurt?(Agriculture, n=589; Construction, n=607; Forestry, n=373; Manufacturing, n=683; Commercial Fishing, n=491; Other sector, n=903)

Base: Employers from the 4 Risk sectors (n=1310)

Q: In the last 12 months, which of the following has happened to anyone who works in your business while at work?

62 %15 %

13 %

10 %

NONE

ONE

MORE THAN ONE

DON'T KNOW

Base: Employers from the 4 Risk sectors (n=1299)

Q: In the last 12 months, how many times has someone working in your business had a near miss where they could have been seriously hurt at work?

BUSINESSESNEAR MISSES

28%

SERIOUS HARM

INCIDENT

87

When the six sectors are compared, it can be seen that employers in Forestry and Manufacturing were more

likely to have had a serious harm incident in their business. While Forestry employers were also far more likely

to have had multiple near miss incidents, this was not the case in the Manufacturing sector. Across the sectors,

apart from the ‘Other’ sector, Commercial Fishing employers were less likely to have experienced a serious harm

incident or near miss in their businesses.

4.5.4 Incidence of serious harm incidents and near miss in businesses: Employers

The following analysis calculates the total number of serious harm incidents the employers in our survey had

experienced in the past 12 months and the number of these incidents that employers stated had been reported

to Department of Labour, MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment), Maritime NZ or WorkSafe

NZ.

Clearly, this analysis has to be treated with some caution as it relies on recall of incidents over the past 12

months. It only includes those employers who indicated they had experienced one or more serious harm

incidents in their business over the past 12 months. We show the number of employers in the sample, the

number of serious harm incidents these employers stated they had experienced and then the proportion of

these incidents that the employers said had been reported to a government agency.

As can be seen, the 293 Forestry employers in the survey experienced a total of 108 incidents, and of these, 65%

were reported to a government agency. This is by far the highest level of reporting across sectors. The lowest

level of reporting is in the Agriculture sector, where just 24% of harm incidents had been reported.


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

SERIOUS HARM n=367 n=336 n=254 n=353 n=127 n=313

% HAD AT LEAST ONE INCIDENT

26% 26% 36% 34% 19% 14%

NEAR MISSES n=359 n=330 n=260 n=350 n=123 n=310

% NONE 63% 59% 27% 64% 74% 81%

% ONE 16% 17% 20% 11% 8% 4%

% MORE THAN ONE 11% 15% 46% 12% 10% 9%

Base: EmployersQ: In the last 12 months, which of the following has happened to anyone who works in your business while they were at work (including employees and contractors)?Q: In the last 12 months, as far as you know, how many times has someone working in your business had a near miss where they could have been seriously hurt at work?

88

4.5.5 Total number of serious harm incidents in businesses – and proportion reported: Employers

Actions taken – serious harm incidents and near misses When a serious harm issue/incident or a near miss occurs, it is important that appropriate action is taken to help

ensure it does not happen again.

Workers who had experienced serious harm or a near miss were asked what happened following the last

occurrence. Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, the 22% of workers who had experienced serious

harm in the previous 12 months indicated that the following had occurred:

Information was recorded in 37% of cases into a serious harm incident or near miss or hazard

register/board

In 45% of cases, the incident was reported to the boss/manager and/or to other workers

In 25% of cases, discussions were held about how to stop the incident happening again

In 29% of cases, changes were made to the way things were done

In 8% of cases, the worker did not tell anyone about the serious harm issue/incident

In 10% of cases, the worker reported the issue/incident to their boss or supervisor but felt nothing

happened as a result

In 2% of cases, the worker got into trouble with the boss/management.

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high- risk sectors, the 30% of workers who had experienced one or more near miss

incidents in the past 12 months stated that the following had occurred:

Information was recorded in 31% of cases into an serious harm incident or near miss or hazard

register/board

In 46% of cases, the incident was reported to the boss/manager and/or to other workers

In 28% of cases, discussions were held about how to stop the incident happening again

In 35% of cases, changes were made to the way things were done

In 18% of cases, the worker did not tell anyone about the near miss

In 11% of cases, the worker reported the near miss to their boss or supervisor but felt nothing happened

as a result

In 1% of cases, the worker got into trouble with the boss/management.

Base: Employers

Q: Number of incidents happened and reported


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS (UNWEIGHTED)

401 364 293 367 147 331

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS OCCURRED

95 115 108 184 29 66

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS REPORTED

23 32 70 49 10 25

PROPORTION OF INCIDENTS REPORTED

24% 28% 65% 27% 35% 38%

89

As shown in the following table, there were variations across sectors in terms of the actions taken. Workers in

the ‘Other’ sector were considerably less likely to tell anyone about serious harm issues/incidents and hence,

these issues/incidents were less likely to be recorded or action taken as a result (most of these issues/incidents

were stress or mental health related).

Manufacturing and Forestry workers were more likely to have had both serious harm issues/incidents and near

misses recorded than the other sectors. In the Manufacturing sector, a higher proportion of workers (16%)

compared with other sectors had reported serious harm issues/incidents and near harm incidents to their boss

or management but felt that nothing had happened as a result.

The Forestry and Commercial Fishing sectors were most likely to take action following the occurrence of a near

miss incident.

4.5.6 Actions taken on last occasion serious harm incidents or near miss occurred: Workers


FISHINGOTHER

SERIOUS HARM INCIDENTS n=102 n=133 n=86 n=172 n=116 n=183

NOTHING, I DIDN’T TELL ANYONE 12% 6% 6% 7% 6% 22%

REPORTED BUT NO ACTION 7% 9% 12% 16% 8% 16%

WORKERS BLAMED 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 5%

ACTION TAKEN

RECORDED 17% 41% 53% 48% 30% 16%

REPORTED 32% 43% 56% 62% 46% 46%

ACTION TAKEN (e.g. discussed to stop happening again, changed the way we did something)

53% 57% 63% 57% 60% 46%


NOTHING, I DIDN’T TELL 22% 20% 8% 12% 11% 18%


WORKERS BLAMED 1% 2% 2% 0% 2% 1%

ACTION TAKEN

RECORDED 13% 35% 66% 43% 29% 32%

REPORTED 29% 49% 57% 61% 46% 40%

ACTION TAKEN (e.g. discussed to stop happening again, changed the way we did something)

59% 58% 68% 62% 68% 52%

Base: Workers who have experienced serious harm incident or health problems/near miss at work in the last 12 months

90

As with workers, employers who had experienced a serious harm incident or near miss were asked what

happened on the last occasion.

The 28% of employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors that had experienced a serious harm

incident in their business in the past 12 months stated that the following occurred:

Medical assistance was sought in 71% of cases


register/board

How to stop the incident occurring again was discussed and/or appropriate action was taken (such as

changing the way things were done, increasing training) in 59% of cases

In 31% of cases, the incident was investigated (including 31% internal investigation and 4% external

investigation)

In 6% of cases, disciplinary action was taken against the worker

In 5% of cases, nothing was done.

The 28% of employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors that had experienced a near miss in their

business in the past 12 months stated that the following occurred:


register/board

How to stop the incident occurring again was discussed and/or appropriate action was taken (such as

changing the way things were done, increasing training) in 86% of cases

In 27% of cases, an internal investigation was undertaken

In 10% of cases, disciplinary action was taken against the worker

In 6% of cases, nothing was done.

Again, the Forestry sector led the way in terms of recording incidents and taking action. Compared with other

sectors, inaction appeared more prevalent among Agriculture employers.

91

4.5.7 Actions taken on last occasion serious harm incidents or near miss occurred: Employers


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

SERIOUS HARM INCIDENTS n=127 n=132 n=93 n=151 n=24 n=74

NOTHING 10% 2% 5% 2% 4% 2%

NET RECORDED 36% 69% 78% 70% 49% 46%

NET ACTION 48% 67% 76% 64% 62% 57%

NET INVESTIGATED 14% 38% 58% 44% 24% 37%

DISCIPLINE AGAINST WORKER 3% 7% 16% 7% 12% 3%


NOTHING 13% 3% 0% 1% 5% 3%

NET RECORDED 29% 58% 91% 71% 54% 66%

NET ACTION 82% 85% 97% 94% 95% 84%

DISCIPLINE AGAINST WORKER 7% 11% 16% 10% 27% 3%

Base: Employers whose employees have experienced serious harm incident or health problems/near miss in the last 12 months

92

Hazards – identification of hazards and actions taken as a result It is important that workers and employers are constantly alert to potential hazards and that, if a potential

hazard is noticed, appropriate action is taken to avert a harm incident from occurring.

Some 68% of workers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors remembered noticing a new hazard at work.

This varied across sectors as shown in the following table, with 84% of Forestry workers having noticed a new

hazard at one extreme and 51% of Agriculture workers and ‘Other’ workers at the other.

4.5.8 Actions taken on last occasion hazard noticed: Workers

Almost without exception across all six sectors, appropriate action was taken by the workers observing the

hazard – just 1% stating that they did nothing. While most workplaces acted appropriately once the hazard was

reported, a slightly higher proportion of workers in Forestry (7%) and Manufacturing (9%) felt that no further

action was taken once the hazard had been reported.

Some 56% of employers across the four risk sectors remembered noticing a new hazard at work. This varied

across sectors as shown in the following table, with 88% of Forestry employers having noticed a new hazard at

one extreme and 39% of employers in the ‘Other’ sector.

As can be seen, almost without exception, employers across all sectors indicated that appropriate action was

taken.


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

HAZARDS n=592 n=617 n=376 n=702 n=506 n=914

HAVEN’T NOTICED ANY 49% 23% 16% 28% 37% 49%

DID SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY (e.g. stopped work till hazard removed)

27% 52% 51% 45% 37% 32%

CHANGED WAY WE DID SOMETHING (e.g. changed process to eliminate hazard)

25% 30% 33% 27% 30% 17%

WRITTEN INTO HAZARD BOARD/REGISTER

11% 26% 48% 27% 28% 17%


NOTHING 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Base: Workers

93

4.5.9 Actions taken on last occasion hazard noticed: Employers


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

HAZARDS n=380 n=344 n=269 n=357 n=134 n=321

HAVEN’T NOTICED ANY 52% 35% 12% 44% 49% 61%

DID SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY (e.g. stopped work till hazard removed)

27% 39% 55% 37% 31% 23%

CHANGED WAY WE DID SOMETHING (e.g. changed our process to eliminate hazard)

25% 46% 65% 35% 35% 22%

WRITTEN INTO HAZARD BOARD/REGISTER

16% 27% 73% 25% 33% 15%

NOTHING 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Base: Employers

94

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Occurrence of serious harm issues/incidents, near misses and hazards

In the Construction sector, 20% of workers indicated that they had had a serious harm incident/issue in the past

12 months. The most commonly mentioned was stress-related or mental illness, mentioned by 7% of all

Construction workers. This was more prominent among those who managed or supervised three or more

workers (mentioned by 11%). Put another way, 36% of those who had experienced a serious harm incident in

Construction mentioned a stress related or mental illness.

While not classified as serious harm, 19% of all Construction workers had suffered a sprain, strain or dislocation

in the past 12 months. This type of injury was particularly prevalent among plumbers (38%) and manual

labourers (29%). Plumbers were also more likely to have experienced an eye injury from work (10% cf. 3%

overall), while Māori workers were particularly likely to have experienced a laceration or deep cut that required

stitches (13% cf. 4% overall).

While 4% of workers overall had experienced exposure to asbestos, the proportion rose to 12% of those working

on the Canterbury rebuild. Plumbers were also particularly likely to have been exposed (13%).

4.5.10 Types of serious harm experienced in the past 12 months: Construction Workers and Employers

TYPES OF HARM WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Sprain, strain or dislocation 19% -

A stress-related or mental illness 7% 4%

A health problem that resulted in severe temporary damage to your body or made you temporarily very unwell

5% 5%

A laceration or a deep cut that required stitches 4% 13%

Exposure to asbestos 4% 3%

An eye injury from work (e.g. chemical or hot-metal burn of eye, penetrating wound of eye)

3% 7%

A health problem that has resulted in permanent damage to your body (such as breathing problems like asthma, hearing loss, disease or illness)

3% 0%

A bone fracture 1% 5%

An injury from crushing 1% 4%

Been hurt, or became sick and was put in hospital for more than 48 hours

1% 1%

Became unconscious 0% 1%

A body part amputated 0% 1%

Burns requiring medical attention 0% 1%

Other serious injury or health problem that required you to take time off work

1% -

NET SERIOUS HARM INCIDENT (excludes sprains, strains or dislocations) 20% 26%


Q: In the last 12 months, which of the following have you had from your work/ has happened to anyone who works for your business while at work?

95

A quarter (26%) of Construction employers stated that their business had experienced at least one serious harm

issue/incident in the past 12 months. Businesses particularly likely to have done so were those involved in the

Canterbury rebuild (46%), those working mainly in excavation (51%), those with 10-19 employees (53%), six or

more contractors (43%) and those with migrant workers (41%). While lacerations and deep cuts that required

stitches were the most prevalent among these employer sub-groups, those working in excavation were

particularly likely to have experienced an injury from crushing (21% cf. 4% overall) or a stress-related or mental

illness (15% cf. 4%).

As was the case across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall, Construction employers appeared to be

more aware of injuries to their workers rather than health-related problems.

Near misses that could have resulted in serious harm were experienced by 31% of Construction workers and

32% of Construction employers also mentioned their business had experienced at least one near miss incident in

the past 12 months.

The largest variation by Construction work type was among those working in general construction with a lower

proportion of workers (22%) indicating they had experienced a near miss incident in this timeframe. While only

14% of Construction workers had experienced two or more near misses, those working 51 hours or more per

week (24%) and machinery operators (28%) were more likely to have had multiple near misses.

Fifteen percent of Construction employers had experienced more than one near miss. Those employers

particularly likely to have experienced multiple near misses were those involved in the Canterbury rebuild (43%),

those with workers on 10 or more sites not owned by the business (29%), those with six or more contractors

(41%), those employing migrant workers (40%), those working in excavation (28%) and those working with

mobile plant (27%).

A new hazard had been noticed by 77% of Construction workers and 65% of Construction employers.

Actions taken around serious harm issues/incidents, near misses and hazards

As shown earlier, the majority of Construction workers who experienced a serious harm issue/incident took

appropriate action. However, 20% of workers who experienced a near miss did nothing and didn’t tell anyone, a

higher proportion than in the Forestry, Manufacturing and Commercial Fishing sectors.

It was also evident that Construction workers experiencing serious harm issues/incidents and near misses were

less likely to record these incidents in a register than workers in the Forestry and Manufacturing sectors.

While these results may be partially explained by the higher proportion of self-employed people and smaller

businesses in Construction, they also suggest that the Construction sector may have some work to do to

formalise its processes and systems around recording risk.

96

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.6 UNDERSTANDING OF REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

The government uses legislation to regulate workplaces and how they conduct their business. Workers have

legal responsibilities in relation to workplace Health and Safety and their rights are also protected by law.

Employers have legal obligations for Health and Safety and, as well as knowing what these obligations are, they

must also know how to comply.

In the survey, we asked workers and employers the extent to which they felt confident they knew their legal

rights and responsibilities. They responded via a 5-point scale ranging from not at all confident through to very

confident. Note that their claimed level of knowledge was not tested in any way. In fact, the qualitative research

suggests that, had we asked respondents to list these legal rights and responsibilities, few would have been able

to do so. Thus, these results are simply a measure of perceptions of knowledge rather than a measure of actual

knowledge.

Across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 63% of workers expressed confidence (4-5 on the 5-point scale)

in their knowledge of their legal responsibilities in relation to Health and Safety, while an almost identical

percentage expressed confidence in their knowledge of their rights.

Among the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, 67% of employers expressed confidence that they were fully

aware of their Health and Safety obligations as an employer, while 62% expressed confidence that they

understood how to comply with their obligations.

4.6.1 Understanding of Health and Safety Regulations: Workers and Employers

While results are reasonably consistent across demographic groups, a higher proportion of young workers aged

18-24 years admitted not feeling confident that they knew their legal responsibilities (23% not confident) or

rights (17% not confident). As a general rule, the larger the organisation worked for in terms of number of

employees, the greater the degree of confidence expressed by workers that they knew their legal rights and

Base: Workers from 4 risk sectors (n=2272-2274)) Base: Employers from 4 risk sectors (n= 1346-1353)

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

63%confident

I am fully aware of my legal responsibilities as a

worker

Confident they are fully aware of obligations as an

employer

67%confident

65%confident

I am fully aware of my rights as a worker

Confident they understand how to comply with

regulations

62% confident

Q: Level of confidence felt (5-point scale where 1= not at all confident and 5= very confident)

97

responsibilities. Among the self-employed, a sizable minority responded that the question about legal

responsibilities as a worker did not apply to them (16%) and/or that the question about legal rights did not apply

to them (20%). A minority of workers in businesses of 2-5 employees also felt these questions did not apply to

them (11% for rights and 8% for responsibilities).

Across employers, the same pattern with respect to size of business can be observed; that is, the larger the

business in terms of number of employees, the more likely employers were to feel confident they fully

understood their obligations and how to comply with them. As an illustration, 64% of employers with between

1-5 employees felt confident they fully understood their obligations while the corresponding proportion among

businesses of 100 or more was 97%.

Variations by sector are illustrated below. Forestry again leads the way with both workers and employers

expressing more confidence than the other sectors.

4.6.2 Confidence in knowledge about Health and Safety rights and responsibilities: Workers and Employers


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

WORKERS n=583-586 n=613 n=374-375 n=701 n=500-501 n=914-915

% CONFIDENT ABOUT RESPONSIBILITIES

52% 69% 77% 67% 71% 60%

% CONFIDENT ABOUT RIGHTS 55% 70% 75% 68% 64% 61%

EMPLOYERS n=376-380 n=345-346 n=268-269 n=357-358 n=133-135 n=319-321

% CONFIDENT ABOUT RESPONSIBILITIES

64% 66% 88% 72% 72% 72%

% CONFIDENT KNOW HOW TO COMPLY

59% 62% 84% 65% 72% 69%

Base: All Workers and all Employers

Q: Level of confidence felt (5-point scale where 1= not at all confident and 5= very confident)

98

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Around seven in ten Construction workers felt confident they knew about their Health and Safety

responsibilities (69%) and their rights (70%). Those working with migrant workers and machinery operators were

particularly likely to feel confident they knew about their responsibilities (76% and 80% respectively), while

those working in heavy and civil engineering construction (79%) and land development and site preparation

(84%) and those working as machinery operators (80%) were particularly likely to feel confident they knew their

rights.

Among employers in this sector, 66% felt confident about knowing their obligations while 11% expressed a lack

of confidence. Sixty two percent felt confident that they knew how to comply with these obligations, but 10%

expressed a lack of confidence in their understanding of compliance.

Employers particularly likely to express a lack of confidence in knowing their obligations and their understanding

of compliance were those with workers on 10 or more sites not owned by the business (21% and 20%

respectively) and those working in residential building construction (16% and 15% respectively).

99

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.7 WHAT INFLUENCES CHANGE IN BUSINESS SYSTEMS OR PRACTICES?

To shed light on what stimulates significant change in Health and Safety systems or practices, employers were

asked whether or not they had made any significant changes in the past 12 months and if so, the reasons why

these changes had been made. These questions were also asked in National Survey of Employers (NSE)

conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

A total of 40% of employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors believed they had made significant

changes in this timeframe. The types of businesses most likely to have made significant changes were larger

businesses, especially 100+ employees where 83% had made significant changes. Regionally, Taranaki stands out

as having more employers that have made significant changes (62%).

As can be seen from the following chart, the sectors where the most significant change had occurred in this

timeframe were Forestry (76%) and Construction (49%).

4.7.1 Businesses that had made significant changes in Health and Safety systems or practices in last 12 months: Employers

The proportion of high-risk sector employers in the WorkSafe NZ survey stating that they had made significant

changes was double that of employers in the 2013 NSE survey (40% cf. 20%). However, when employers from

the lower-risk ‘Other’ sector responded to this question in the WorkSafe NZ Survey, the proportion was almost

identical (22%) to the NSE result. This suggests that employers across the high- risk sectors have a greater focus

on improving business systems and practices around Health and Safety than employers in general.

22%

33%

38%

76%

49%

34%AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

EMPLOYERS


Q: In the last 12 months, has your business made any significant changes to its health and safety systems or practices?

100

Over three quarters (78%) of the employers who had made significant changes to their Health and Safety

systems or practices explained that this was due to on-going improvements. Fifty-six percent attributed these

changes to the fact that they had learnt more about best practice through information and education.

Improvements in practice at an industry-wide level had influenced 44%. Being visited by an inspector and having

a serious harm incident or near miss had influenced smaller proportions of employers to introduce significant

changes.

4.7.2 Influences leading to significant changes in Health and Safety systems or practices: Employers

Forestry employers who had made significant changes had been influenced by a broader range of aspects,

including being visited by an inspector, having a serious harm incident or near miss and improvements in

practice industry-wide.

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Around half (49%) of the employers in Construction had made significant changes to Health and Safety systems

or practices in the past 12 months. Higher proportions of employers with six or more contractors (81%), migrant

workers (66%) and those working in non-residential building construction (59%) had made changes, while

change was less common among finishing businesses (40%).

As across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors in general, the main drivers of change in Construction were

ongoing improvements to workplace Health and Safety (79% of those who had made changes), learning more

about best practice through education and information (61%) and improvements in practice industry-wide

(46%), the latter particularly among employers in Canterbury (64%). Just 10% cited a visit by an inspector as a

catalyst for change.

78%

56%

44%

8%

7%

5%

ON-GOING IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

LEARNING MORE ABOUT BEST PRACTICE THROUGH INFORMATION OR EDUCATION

IMPROVEMENTS IN INDUSTRY PRACTICE

A WORKPLACE INSPECTION BY A HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTOR

A NEAR MISS

AN ACCIDENT

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors who have made significant changes (n=721)

Q: Did the business make this change in response to….?

101

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

4.8 ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRIC (OPM)

At the Institute of Work & Health in Ontario, Canada, work has been carried out for many years to identify lead

indicators in workplace Health and Safety. In 2008, the Institute developed the Institute for Work & Health

Organisational Performance Metric (IWH-OPM), consisting of eight questions that assessed the degree to which

an organisation had optimal Health and Safety policies and practices. When considered in conjunction with

reported injury rates, those workplaces with higher scores on the Metric had lower injury rates.

This work has been picked up by Monash University and has informed an Occupational Health and Safety Lead

Indicator research project in Victoria, Australia being undertaken in partnership with Workplace Health and

Safety Research, the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research and Safe Work Australia.

In the 2014 WorkSafe NZ Survey, the IWH-OPM tool has been trialed on employers. The IWH-OPM consists of

eight questions. Originally in the Canadian work, respondents rated each of the questions on a scale from one to

five based on the percent of time the practices occurred in the organisation. This scale was replaced with a 5-

point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for use in Australia and this was adopted for the WorkSafe

NZ survey.

The eight questions are:

1. Formal audits at regular intervals are a normal part of our business.

2. Everyone at this organisation values ongoing safety improvement in this organisation.

3. This organisation considers safety at least as important as production and quality in the way work is

done.

4. Workers and supervisors have the information they need to work safely.

5. Employees are always involved in decisions affecting their health and safety.

6. Those in charge of safety have the authority to make the changes they have identified as necessary.

7. Those who act safely receive positive recognition.

8. Everyone has the tools and/or equipment they need to complete their work safely.

A summative measure is used to report the data, adding the answers to all eight questions together to result in a

low score of eight (all ones) to a high score of 40 (all fives).

102

The following chart shows the distribution of scores in the survey of employers across the four high-risk sectors.

The results are also grouped into four tiers: tier one being a score of 40 (resulting from a ‘strongly agree’

response to all eight questions), tier two being a score between 36-39, tier three a score of 32-35 and tier four a

score of 8-31. Tier 1 is therefore the ‘ideal’ tier and Tier 4 the least desirable tier.

4.8.1 Distribution of IWH–OPM: 4 Risk Sectors: Employers

Ten percent of employers were placed in tier one (strongly agreed with all statements), ranging from 30% of

employers in Forestry being in tier one to 7% in Agriculture being in tier one.

A considerable amount of work is underway to investigate leading indicators of Health and Safety in the New

Zealand context. One result from this WorkSafe NZ survey that suggests the IWH-OPM has merit is that the

mean IWH-OPM score for employers who responded in the survey that their business had experienced at least

one serious harm incident in the previous 12 months was significantly lower than the mean IWH-OPM score of

those employers that had not had an incident (31.7 compared with 33.0).

0%

5%

10%

15%

DISTRIBUTION OF IWH-OPM

TIER 4 TIER 3 TIER 2 TIER

1

Base: Employers from 4 Risk Sectors (n=1334)

TIER 1 – 10%OPM SCORE

OF 40

To achieve this score a person must strongly agree with all 8

questions

TIER 2 – 27%OPM SCORE OF 39 TO 36

Person could strongly agree with only 7 of the questions at

the most


Person could strongly agreewith only 6 of the questions at

the most


Person could only stronglyagree with only 5 of the questions at the most

103

The overall IWH-OPM score across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors was 32.7, varying for each sector as

follows:

4.8.2 Mean scores for IWH–OPM: by sector

The two statements with the highest proportion of employers giving a strongly agree response were ‘those in

charge of safety have the authority to make the changes they have identified as necessary’ and ‘ everyone has

the tools and/or equipment they need to complete their work safely’, both with 62% of employers strongly

agreeing.

Because the majority of New Zealand businesses are small employers, the statement having the most impact on

reducing the proportion of NZ employers in tier one is ‘formal safety audits at regular intervals are a normal part

of our business’, with just 21% strongly agreeing with this statement. Just 17% of employers of 1-5 people

strongly agreed with this statement compared with 59% of those with 100 or more employees. However, the

proportion of large businesses falling into tier one was not significantly different to the proportion from smaller

businesses.

Among large businesses, there were lower levels of strong agreement with most of the other seven statements,

highlighting the greater challenge of consistently following practices favourable to Health and Safety across a

large organisation. For example, while 50% of employers with 1-5 employees strongly agreed that workers were

always involved in decisions affecting their Health and Safety, this proportion reduced to 31% among employers

32.3

33.0

36.2

32.7

34.1

32.8

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

AGRICULTURE (n=370)

CONSTRUCTION(n=342)

FORESTRY(n=267)


COMMERCIAL FISHING(n=127)

OTHER(n=313)

IWH-OPM AVERAGE SCORES

Base: Employers (n=1774)

104

of 100+ people. On the practice of giving positive recognition to those who act safely, the comparative

proportions are 42% of small employers and 25% of large employers.

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

Employers in the Construction sector had an average IWH-OPM score of 33.0, similar to the average of 32.7

across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors, with the distribution shown in the following chart:

4.8.3 Distribution of IWH–OPM: 4 Risk Sectors: Construction Employers

Responses from Construction employers typically reflected those of the other high-risk sectors (with the

exception of Forestry which achieved more favourable ratings across the board).

Construction employers were most likely to agree that those in charge of safety had the authority to

make changes (88% agreed) and that everyone had the tools and equipment they needed to work safely

(88%)

The statements with lower levels of agreement were that those acting safely receiving positive

recognition (69%) and regular formal safety audits were a normal part of the business (43%).

There was little variation in the IWH-OPM across sub-groups. The only one of note was that businesses with 6-9

employees were more likely than average to be in the lowest tier four (47% versus 32% of all Construction

businesses) while those with 10-19 employees were more likely to be in the top-performing tier one (22% versus

9% of all Construction businesses).

0%

5%

10%

15%

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

TIER 4 TIER 3 TIER 2 TIER

1

Base: Employers in Construction (n=342)

DISTRIBUTION OF IWH-OPM

TIER 1 – 9%OPM SCORE

OF 40

To achieve this score a person must strongly agree with all 8

questions


Person could strongly agree with only 7 of the questions at

the most


Person could strongly agreewith only 6 of the questions at

the most


Person could only stronglyagree with only 5 of the questions at the most

105

SECTION 5:

SEGMENTATION

106

5 SEGMENTATION In this section we present a segmentation of workers and employers.

5.1 QUALITATIVE SEGMENTATION

The qualitative stage of this research programme provided an indicative segmentation of workers and

employers, where typologies were identified based on similar mindsets and behavioural patterns. This

segmentation model is intended to underpin future strategies for WorkSafe NZ interventions and

communications strategies because a ‘one-size fits all’ approach will not suffice.

A brief overview of the qualitative model is:

Common to all employers and workers is the drive to PROSPER. For employers, this usually means

sustaining and growing the business, striving to be more competitive and/or protecting reputations. For

employees, this means job security, opportunities for personal success and financial rewards, job

satisfaction and/or career advancement

Intrinsically linked to the drive to prosper is PRESSURE to succeed or perform. Pressure is experienced by

employers and workers from across all sectors, at all levels. It comes from a complex array of internal

and external sources and is constantly fluctuating. Segments come about by how they respond to Health

and Safety when under pressure

What teases the different typologies apart in the qualitative segmentation when the drive to prosper

and the pressure to succeed or perform is universal, albeit manifested in different ways is a) the

perceived importance and value of Health and Safety and b) the perceived importance and value in

complying with Health and Safety requirements.

From the qualitative research, five segments were identified as follows:

1. Proactive Guardians – driven by the need to protect. They actively embrace Health and Safety and regard it

as important as profit. These people understand the role and value of Health and Safety in the workplace

and how it contributes positively to the business. Health and Safety makes good business sense.

2. Pick and Mix Pragmatists – driven by self-reliance and self-confidence. They trust their own intuition and

experience above all and take calculated risks. They value Health and Safety but they mainly adhere to it

when they want to. They feel that if they apply common sense then Health and Safety will usually be taken

care of. They are likely to feel that some of the rules go too far.

3. Tick the Box Immunity – driven by fear of prosecution or censure. They want to cover their tracks. They

adhere to Health and Safety rules but there is no positive emotional engagement. They think about

themselves rather than the welfare of others.

4. Resisting – driven by the need for freedom. They are libertarians with a streak of anti-authority. They reject

Health and Safety and they talk of the nanny/police state. For them, Health and Safety can be a hindrance

rather than a help. They are essentially fatalistic.

107

5. Hidden – driven by ignorance. They mostly are unaware of Health and Safety rules. Often they are young,

inexperienced workers and migrants with limited or no English, typically from South-East Asia, China, South

America, India and the Middle East. These people are very vulnerable.

The qualitative research has been, and will continue to be, used extensively to inform programme design and

development.

5.2 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTATION

One objective of the quantitative stage was to confirm the existence of the indicative qualitative segments and

to size and profile these segments.

A battery of attitude statements based on the qualitative research was constructed. How a respondent

answered this battery of statements predicted which of the qualitative segments described above he or she was

most likely to fall into. (Because the quantitative stage did not extend to migrant workers or workers under 18

years of age, the Hidden group was not represented at the quantitative stage).

A latent class analysis was used to identify segments of (homogeneous) people similar in attitudes to each other

and different from the other segments (heterogeneous). More information about this process is included in the

Technical Report. The segmentations described below for both workers and employers have high R² (the

coefficient of determination that indicates how well data fit a statistical model) indicating that the questions

used to segment that data strongly differentiate the segments.

108

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

5.3 OVERVIEW OF SEGMENTS

Five segments for workers, and five similar segments for employers, were identified. These are summarised in

the following chart:

5.3.1 Segment overview: Workers and Employers

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

PROACTIVE GUARDIAN


Strong and uncompromising advocates of health and safety



Value health and safety and try to abide by it, but sometimes rules go a bit too far – common sense can be applied


DUTIFUL)







TICK THE BOX


Less positive emotional engagement with health and safety, don’t think about it much

and don’t really know much about it

More casual emotional engagement with health and safety than preceding segments, will do enough to be able to tick the box in terms of compliance but not much more

RESISTING/UNENGAGED



tell them this. The whole health and safety thing is frustrating: there are too many rules, it’s unrealistic to follow all of them and they


Relatively poor attitudes to health and safety due to a lack of engagement (rather than frustration or negativity with the rules


MO

RE

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

LESS

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

Base: Workers from the 4 Risk Sectors (Proactive Guardian, n=162; Pick & Mix Pragmatists, n=572; Pressured Pick & Mixers, n=307; Tick the Box Unengaged, n=918; Resisting, n=355)

Base: Employers from the 4 Risk Sectors (Proactive Guardian, n=206; Pick & Mix Pragmatists, n=528; Dutiful Pick & Mixers, n=82; Tick the Box, n=439; Unengaged, n=170)

109

5.4 THE WORKERS’ SEGMENTS – OVERVIEW

The following table illustrates the statements from which the segments were derived. Workers were asked the

extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement and responded using a 5-point scale ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. This table shows the proportion of each segment who strongly agreed with

each statement.

This table is colour coded – the green showing where a segment’s results are significantly better than the

average (from a Health and Safety perspective) and the pink where results are significantly worse (not

supportive of Health and Safety) compared with the overall result. Note that the two statements above the line

express positive attitudes to Health and Safety (and therefore 100% strongly agreeing with each is the optimal

result) whereas strong agreement with the six statements below the line indicates Health and Safety may be

considered more optional (and therefore 100% strongly agreeing is the worst result).

5.4.1 Proportion strongly agreeing with attitude statements: Workers segments

As can be seen, the segments are clearly differentiated based on strength of opinion towards Health and Safety.

For example, all the Proactive Guardian segment strongly agree they get huge satisfaction from knowing there is

% STRONGLY AGREEPROACTIVEGUARDIAN

5%

PICK & MIXPRAGMATIST

23%

PRESSUREDPICK & MIXERS

13%

TICK THE BOX UNENGAGED

41%

RESISTING18%

I ALWAYS KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT WORK

100% 100% 39% 21% 44%

I GET HUGE SATISFACTION FROM KNOWING WE HAVE A SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT

100% 100% 32% 16% 28%

I REALLY ONLY FOLLOW THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RULES BECAUSE I HAVE TO

0% 15% 0% 7% 22%

THE MAIN REASON I DO HEALTH AND SAFETY IS SO I DON'T GET INTO TROUBLE

0% 27% 0% 14% 26%

WHEN YOU ARE REALLY BUSY, IT'S EASY TO FORGET ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY

0% 14% 9% 12% 21%

HEALTH AND SAFETY IS IMPORTANT BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS REALISTIC TO FOLLOW EVERY RULE AND GUIDELINE

7% 33% 11% 24% 66%

I GET ANNOYED THAT THERE ARE SO MANY RULES WHEN HOW I KEEP MYSELF SAFE IS MY OWN BUSINESS

0% 19% 0% 7% 62%

HEALTH AND SAFETY CAN BE A WASTE OF MONEY BECAUSE IT WON'T STOP ALL ACCIDENTS HAPPENING

0% 10% 0% 2% 46%

KEY: COMPARED WITH THE OVERALL RESULT (from an optimal Health and Safety viewpoint)

SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER

SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE


110

a healthy and safe workplace and none strongly agree that they only follow the rules because they have to.

While the Pick and Mix Pragmatists also strongly agree they get huge satisfaction, their responses to other

statements indicate that sometimes compromises or excuses for not following the rules are acceptable.

The following chart is a visual map or representation of the segments. The x-axis represents behaviour and the y-

axis represents attitudes. The positioning of each segment on the map has been determined as follows:

Y axis: An average attitudinal rating score has been created for each segment based on the eight attitude

statements. The proportion of each segment strongly agreeing with each of the eight statements has been

added together, with the proportion strongly agreeing to each positive statements being treated as a positive

number and the proportion strongly agreeing with each of the negative statements being treated as a negative

number. This number has then been divided by 8 to give an average across the eight statements. For example,

the Proactive Guardians’ total number was 100+100-7=193/8=24).

X axis: An average behavioural score has also been created for each segment based on responses to questions

asking how consistently each of five preventative actions was taken in the workplace (always, most of the time,

about half the time, less than half the time, never). The actions were:

Personal protective equipment being used when it should be

Machinery and equipment being well maintained

Machinery and equipment being fully checked before use

Action being taken straight away when a potential hazard is identified

Safety devices being fitted to machinery and equipment when they should be.

The proportion of each segment indicating each of the five actions was always taken has been added together

and divided by five to give an average. The size of the segments is depicted by the size of the bubbles.

111

5.4.2 Visual map of segments: Workers

As can be seen, the Proactive Guardians hold a unique position on this chart, away from the other four

segments. The two Pick and Mix segments are positioned on this chart relatively similarly in terms of attitude

but are separated more by their actions. The chart positions of the Tick the Box and Resisting segments on

actions are similar but their attitudes are different. These segments are profiled in more detail in the next

section.

MORE POSITIVEATTITUDES

MORE POSITIVEBEHAVIOUR

LESS POSITIVEBEHAVIOUR

LESS POSITIVEATTITUDES


5%

23%

13%

41%

18%

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PROACTIVE GUARDIAN

PICK & MIX PRAGMATISTS

PRESSURED PICK & MIXERS

TICK THE BOXUNENGAGED

RESISTING

112

5.5 PROFILE OF THE WORKERS’ SEGMENTS

Each of these segments is now profiled, focusing on the aspects that differentiate them from other segments.

PROACTIVE GUARDIANS

% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF PROACTIVE GUARDIANS

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: They derive huge satisfaction from a safe and healthy working environment – they don’t accept excuses or provisos which may compromise Health and Safety. Their attitudes are consistent and unwavering. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: They and/or their workmates are less likely than workers in other segments to take risks and they are more likely to always take preventative measures such as always wearing personal protective equipment and taking action straight away when a hazard is noticed. They are also less likely to have been harmed or had near misses in the past 12 months. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Responsive dialogue is alive and well in their workplaces and there is a particularly strong belief that the bosses and workers work together to ensure everyone’s safety. They have formal processes in place, particularly Health and Safety as a regular meeting agenda item, an elected representative and noticeboards, and most (69%) have had formal Health and Safety training in past 12 months WHAT THEY KNOW: There is almost universal confidence among the Proactive Guardians that they know their Health and Safety rights and responsibilities. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: Almost all are employees (very few self-employed). They are over-represented in large organisations employing 100 or more (26% work in large organisations) and under-represented in small organisations with less than 10 employees (31% cf. 55% across all segments). They tend to be aged 35-54 years. They are most likely to be found among Forestry workers (14% of Forestry workers are Proactive Guardians) and least likely among Agricultural workers (3%).

6%5%8%14%

6%3%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

5%

113


% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF PICK & MIX PRAGMATISTS

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: Like the Proactive Guardians, everyone in this segment strongly agrees they are always on the lookout for hazards and that they get huge satisfaction from knowing they have a healthy and safe environment. However, their views are more wavering and suggest that a lapse in Health and Safety is sometimes understandable or acceptable (e.g. 33% strongly agree it is not always realistic to follow every Health and Safety rule and guideline). BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: This segment’s behaviour is better than all except the Proactive Guardians – they more consistently take preventative actions and are less likely to take risks. This segment is also less likely to have had a near miss than all segments except Proactive Guardians. If a near miss or incident occurs in the workplace or a hazard is noticed, they are likely to follow good processes and take appropriate action. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: They are more likely than average to work in workplaces where responsive dialogue occurs and where there are participatory structures in place around Health and Safety. However, they are no more likely than average to have had formal training in the past 12 months. WHAT THEY KNOW: They are more confident than average in their knowledge and skills to keep healthy and safe, and in their legal responsibilities and rights. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: This segment contains many workers that have worked their way up through experience on the job to managerial or supervisory roles. They tend to be older workers (71% are 45+) and often less qualified (43% have no formal qualifications or just the equivalent of NCEA level one). They are most likely to be found among Forestry workers (33% of Forestry workers are in this segment) and Commercial Fishing workers (35%) and least likely among ‘Other’ workers (17%).

17%

35%

21%

33%

22%24%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

23%

114


% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF PRESSURED PICK & MIXERS

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: This segment buys into the importance of Health and Safety, they are not just doing it because they have to – but they tend to just agree rather than strongly agree with the statements (as the first two segments do). The Pressured Pick and Mixers are more likely than the Pick and Mix Pragmatists to think it’s easy to forget about Health and Safety when you are really busy (43% agree with this statement cf. 33% of the Pragmatists). BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: They and/or their workmates are relatively more likely to behave in risky ways, especially making mistakes through carelessness or distraction or taking shortcuts on purpose to save time, through being overtired, through being put under pressure by the boss and by not having proper supervision. While no more likely than other segments to have been harmed, more of the Pressured Pick and Mix people (along with the Tick the Box segment) have had a near miss in the past 12 months. They are less consistent than the previous two segments discussed in taking preventative actions (such as wearing protective gear). CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Responsive dialogue is less embedded in the culture of their workplaces compared with the first two segments. However, their workplaces are more likely (except for Proactive Guardian segment) to have formal participatory structures in place such as regular Health and Safety meetings, a representative and/or a committee. Formal Health and Safety training is higher than average in this segment as well. WHAT THEY KNOW: Their knowledge of their legal responsibilities and rights is only average. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: More likely to be employees (rather than self-employed) and with a trade or Polytechnic qualification (41%). This is the segment most likely to be working alongside migrant workers (33% do so) and in larger businesses of 20 or more people (42%). They are found more in the Manufacturing sector (18% of Manufacturing workers are Pressured Pick and Mixers).

16%7%

18%11%14%8%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

13%

115


% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF TICK THE BOX UNENGAGED

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: Staying healthy and safe at work is less of a priority for this segment and work-life balance and making good money is relatively more important. They are the segment least likely to agree with the positive Health and Safety statements (only 21% strongly agree they always on the lookout for Health and Safety hazards and only 16% strongly agree they get huge satisfaction from a safe workplace). The Tick the Box Unengaged segment don’t really get annoyed with the rules, they don’t really just do it because they have to, they don’t think Health and Safety is a waste of time – they just don’t really seem to think about it much. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Along with the Pressured Pick and Mixers, this is the segment most likely to behave in risky ways. Along with the Pressured Pick and Mixers, they are also the segment most likely to have had a near miss. If they have been harmed or had a near miss, they are less likely to have told anyone about it or had it recorded. They are the segment least likely to always take appropriate preventative measures. They are also less likely to notice any hazards. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Responsive dialogue is less visible in the workplaces of this segment. Participatory structures are also less likely than average to be in place. The Tick the Box Unengaged segment are less likely to agree they have a say in decisions affecting their Health and Safety (64% have a say, compared with 88% of Proactive Guardians). Compared with other segments, they are less likely to feel they are well equipped or well informed about Health and Safety. WHAT THEY KNOW: They have lower levels of confidence in their knowledge and skills to keep well and safe at work and they are less sure of their rights and responsibilities. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: This is the largest segment with no distinguishing demographic characteristics. They are found more in the ‘Other’ Segment (particularly among office workers) but they comprise a large proportion of every sector (although less dominant in Forestry and Commercial Fishing than in Manufacturing, Construction and Agriculture).

53%

34%

45%

29%

41%40%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

41%

116

RESISTING


THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: As well as being motivated by pride, the Resisting also love the freedom of making their own decisions, of working outdoors and/or on the land. Health and Safety is about staying fit and healthy to keep doing the work they enjoy. They feel Health and Safety can be a waste of time because it won’t stop all accidents happening (81% agree), to get annoyed there are so many rules when how they keep safe is their own business (89% agree) and to feel it is not always realistic to follow every Health and Safety rule (87%). Many think the biggest difference to improving worker safety will be made through people taking personal responsibility and using their common sense. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: They are the sector most likely to work while sick or injured and many also work when overtired. While the incidence of accidents or near misses in this segment is average compared with the other segments, if something happens it is likely to be actioned or fixed on the spot rather than reported or recorded. The Resisting are also less likely than other sectors (except for the Tick the Box Unengaged segment) to always take preventative actions. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: If the subject is brought up or if an incident happens, then open and frank dialogue takes place–but if something happens when others aren’t around it is most likely to be fixed rather than telling everyone about it. The workplaces of the Resisting are less likely to have formal participatory structures in place (even when the self-employed are removed from this segment, 30% have no formal structures) and 34% of the Resisting segment have never had any formal Health and safety training. WHAT THEY KNOW: Along with the Tick the Box Unengaged segment, the Resisting are least confident in knowing their rights and responsibilities. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: This segment is heavily New Zealand European. It contains a higher proportion of self-employed people (33%) or small employers who work alongside their workers (24%). Many (28%) work 51 hours or more a week. Their workplaces are generally small with less than ten employees (77%). They are more likely to be found in the Agriculture sector (25% of workers in the Agriculture sector are Resisting).

7%19%8%

12%17%25%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

18%

117

5.6 THE EMPLOYERS’ SEGMENTS – OVERVIEW

The following table illustrates the statements from which the employer segments were derived. Employers were

asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement and responded using a 5-point scale

ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This table shows the proportion of each segment who strongly

agreed with each statement.

Again, this table is colour coded – the green showing where a segment’s results are significantly better than the

average (from a Health and Safety perspective) and the pink where results are significantly worse (not

supportive of Health and Safety) compared with the overall result. Note that the two statements above the line

express positive attitudes to Health and Safety (and therefore 100% strongly agreeing with each is the optimal

result) whereas strong agreement with the six statements below the line indicates Health and Safety may be

considered more optional (and therefore 100% strongly agreeing is the worst result).

5.6.1 Proportion strongly agreeing with attitude statements: Employers segments

% STRONGLY AGREEPROACTIVEGUARDIAN

10%

PICK & MIXPRAGMATISTS

36%

DUTIFUL PICK & MIXERS

6%

TICK THE BOX34%

UNENGAGED14%

I ALWAYS KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT WORK

100% 100% 48% 0% 0%

WE ARE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO COMPLY WITH ALL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS

100% 35% 7% 12% 9%

THE MAIN REASON WE FOLLOW HEALTH AND SAFETY IS SO WE DON'T GET INTO TROUBLE

0% 22% 0% 6% 8%

WE HAVE RULES AROUND WORKING SAFELY BUT IT IS UP TO WORKERS ON WHETHER THEY ALWAYS FOLLOW THEM

20% 30% 19% 10% 16%

WHEN YOU ARE REALLY BUSY, IT'S EASY TO FORGET ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY

1% 8% 0% 3% 6%

HEALTH AND SAFETY IS IMPORTANT BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS REALISTIC TO FOLLOW EVERY RULE AND GUIDELINE

14% 31% 29% 18% 16%

I GET ANNOYED THAT THERE ARE SO MANY HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS - THIS IS MY BUSINESS AND I DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD HOW TO RUN IT

0% 10% 18% 4% 6%

HEALTH AND SAFETY CAN BE A WASTE OF MONEY BECAUSE IT WON'T STOP ALL ACCIDENTS HAPPENING

0% 10% 3% 5% 7%

KEY: COMPARED WITH THE OVERALL RESULT (from an optimal Health and Safety viewpoint)

SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER

SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE


118

This table shows clear differentiation between segments, with the exception of the Tick the Box and the

Unengaged segments. To pull these segments apart, the less extreme ends of the agreement scale need to be

considered. For example, while 100% of Tick the Box agree (although none strongly agree) that they always

keep an eye out for Health and Safety hazards at work, 0% of the Unengaged agree that this is the case.

The following chart is the same visual map or representation of the employer segments, with the axes identical

to those used in the earlier workers map.

5.6.2 Visual map of segments: Employers

As can be seen, the pattern is very similar to that of the workers’ map, with Proactive Guardian employers

holding a unique position away from the other segments, particularly in terms of attitude. The two Pick and Mix

segments are positioned closely in terms of behaviour but the attitudes of the Dutiful Pick and Mix segment are

not as supportive of Health and Safety as the Pick and Mix Pragmatists. Overall, there is less differentiation of

the employer segments attitudinally when compared with the workers (other than the Proactive Guardians).






10%

36%

6%34%

14%

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PROACTIVE GUARDIAN



TICK THE BOX

UNENGAGED

119

5.7 PROFILE OF THE EMPLOYERS’ SEGMENTS

PROACTIVE GUARDIANS

% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF PROACTIVE GUARDIANS

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: While other segments might also say they always keep an eye out for hazards and are highly motivated to comply, for the Proactive Guardian employers Health and Safety is not done begrudgingly or for business purposes alone but always through genuine concern. They also strongly appreciate the relationship between good Health and Safety and good business, are more likely to have companies who sub-contract their business requiring it, to realise that it helps them attract and retain good staff and that it avoids damage to their reputation and cost to business. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: 53% have made significant changes to their Health and Safety systems and practices in the past 12 months. The Proactive Guardians score highest in the IWH-OPM at 36.8 (see previous section for an explanation of this metric), a metric assessing the degree to which an organisation has optimal Health and Safety policies and practices. Despite this segment containing a higher proportion of larger organisations than other segments, Proactive Guardian employers are no more likely to have had a serious harm incident in their business than smaller employers. If an incident has occurred, it is more likely to have been recorded, investigated internally and had appropriate action taken as a result. This segment shows the most consistent behaviour around preventative action; for example 86% say hazards are always dealt with straight away. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Open and constructive dialogue is the norm. Formal participatory structures are mostly in place so there is a regular focus on Health and Safety. Compared with other segments, these employers are less likely to state that their workers engage in risky behaviours. WHAT THEY KNOW: They are confident in their knowledge of their legal responsibilities (91% confident) and what they need to do to comply (90%). They know more about WorkSafe NZ than the other segments and some have visited the WorkSafe website and/or phoned for advice. They see a government agency as one of their best source of advice. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: This segment is made up of a higher proportion of businesses with 20 or more employees (23% cf. the average across all segments of 10%). Proactive Guardians are more likely to be found in the upper North Island (Auckland, Northland) and Canterbury and to employ migrant workers (37% employ migrant workers). More employers in this segment are found in Forestry (22% of Forestry employers are Proactive Guardians) and fewer in Agriculture (8% of Agricultural employers in this sector).

10% 13%11%11%22%

10%8%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

120


% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF PICK AND MIX PRAGMATISTS

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: The employers in this segment always keep an eye out for Health and Safety hazards (100% strongly agree) and most agree (76%) that they are highly motivated to comply with all Health and Safety regulations, but many also express attitudes indicating they are a little more begrudging about Health and Safety and/or believe sometimes it is unrealistic to follow all rules. One in five even strongly agrees that they mainly do Health and Safety to avoid getting in trouble. While they express strong concern for the Health and Safety of their workers, their Health and Safety activities are also strongly driven by other factors, particularly the cost to the business of a loss in productivity following a serious harm incident and by a wish to avoid being found at fault. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: 45% have made significant changes to their Health and Safety systems and practices in past 12 months. They score second highest on the IWH-OPM at 34.1 so they have relatively good policies and practices. The general pattern of risky behaviour among their workers is no better than average despite this; most commonly these employers believe their workers make mistakes through carelessness or distraction, through working when sick or injured or when over-tired. While their behaviour is better than average in terms of preventative actions being taken by workers, these actions are taken less consistently compared with Proactive Guardians. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Responsive dialogue is better than all other segments except Proactive Guardians, Health and Safety is more likely than average to be an agenda item at regular team meetings and a formal mentoring system is more likely than average to be in place. WHAT THEY KNOW: Employers in this segment are mostly confident they know their legal responsibilities (76% confident) and how to comply (73% confident). THEIR DEMOGRAPHICS: The Pick and Mix Pragmatists are the employers most likely to employ contractors and/or temps. More of this segment is found in Forestry (44% of Forestry employers) and is least likely to be found in the ‘Other’ sector (27%).

27%

39%33%

44%37%36%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

36%

121

DUTIFUL PICK AND MIXERS

% OF EACH SECTOR COMPRISED OF DUTIFUL PICK AND MIXERS

THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: Employers in this segment feel Health and Safety is important but that it is unrealistic to expect all rules will be followed (74% agree this is the case). Some (33%) get annoyed that there are so many rules and feel that they shouldn’t be told how to run their own business. What the Dutiful Pick and Mixers do about Health and Safety is influenced by a very strong concern for their workers, considerably more so than by a wish to avoid negative consequences for the business or to benefit from positive consequences for the business. They feel a duty of care for their workers. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Only a small minority (17% cf. 40% average across the segments) have made any changes to Health and Safety processes in last 12 months. Their IWH-OPM score is third highest at 33.5. The behaviour of their workers is often less risky compared with other segments; they do not put their workers under unreasonable pressure to get things done. Preventative actions are generally consistently followed. So, even though these employers may grumble about the rules their workplaces appear generally safer and their concern for the workers seems genuine. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Formal processes are less likely to be in place. However, employers in this segment feel workers are always involved in decisions affecting their Health and Safety, people in charge of safety have the authority to make necessary changes, and everyone has the tools and equipment they need to keep safe. WHAT THEY KNOW: They are not particularly confident in their knowledge of regulations and how to comply, but they are not really concerned with being fined or prosecuted. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: These are small companies with fewer than ten employees. They are less likely than other segments to be employing any migrant workers. Each sector has only a small proportion of employers in this Dutiful Pick and Mixer segment, peaking from 8% in Manufacturing to 4% in Construction.

6%5%8%6%4%7%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

6%

122

TICK THE BOX


THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: This segment gives the impression that their engagement with Health and Safety is more casual. They all agree (but none strongly agree) they keep an eye out for hazards, and only 12% are highly motivated to comply with all the rules. While they are concerned for the safety of the workers, this concern is slightly lower than average and many think it is up to the workers as to whether they follow all the rules. Slightly more so than other employers, they would like their business to be recognised as a great place to work. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: 42% have made significant changes to Health and Safety processes in the past 12 months. Their score is comparatively low on the IWH-OPM at 30.9. The prevalence of risky behaviours among workers in their businesses is about average, except that employers in this segment are more likely to feel their workers work when overtired, too long without a break or are put at risk by something outside their control. Their workers take preventative actions such as wearing protective gear most rather than all the time. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Overall you get the sense that the businesses represented by the employers in this segment are less formal and more casual in their approach to Health and Safety. It is important, and they care for their workers, but there is only so much a business can and should do. While employers and workers talk to each other, there appears to be fewer businesses in this sector where accidents, near misses and hazards are always reported from workers to bosses and back from bosses to other workers. WHAT THEY KNOW: They are not that confident in their knowledge of regulations (59% confident) and how to comply (54% confident). WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: The Tick the Box employers tend to be smaller businesses, a quarter have no employees but employ contractors or sub-contractors. This segment is less commonly found in the Forestry sector (24%) and peaks in the Commercial Fishing (39%) and Construction (38%) sectors.

35%39%

30%24%

38%35%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

34%

123

UNENGAGED


THE ATTITUDES THAT DISTINGUISH THEM: The employers in this segment do not always keep an eye out for hazards (0% agree they always do this) and only 25% agree they are highly motivated to comply with all the rules. Only 59% agree they would feel personally responsible if a worker was injured. Other responses throughout the survey suggest these attitudes are driven by a lack of engagement with Health and Safety rather than a frustration with or disregard for rules. The Unengaged are the segment most likely to indicate that their focus could be more on profit or productivity rather than Health and Safety. They may still have a strong concern for the Health and Safety of the workers but it can be overshadowed by other concerns and/or just ignored or overlooked through a lack of engagement. BEHAVIOUR IN THEIR WORKPLACES: Only 27% have made any significant changes to Health and Safety processes in the past 12 months and their score on the IWH-OPM is lowest at 29.1. Their workers are more likely than average to engage in risky behaviours, particularly on doing jobs they don’t have skills for, making a mistake through pressure to get the job done, through machinery breakdown or fault. Their workers are also less likely to always take preventative actions such as checking machinery or wearing protective gear. This segment has the highest proportion of businesses with a worker who suffered a serious harm, but lower levels of these harms being recorded or investigated. These employers are less likely to know if their workers have had any near miss experiences and are less likely to have noticed any new hazards. CULTURE IN THEIR WORKPLACES: While not as positive as other segments, most employers believe that there is open and free dialogue in their businesses. However, processes such as workers reporting incidents to bosses occur with less consistency and there are fewer formal systems in place for workers to regularly engage in Health and Safety discussions. WHAT THEY KNOW: Only a minority (46%) are confident that they are fully aware of their Health and Safety obligations and fewer (38%) are confident that they understand how to comply. WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE: This segment’s profile matches the overall profile of employers in terms of business size. Compared with other segments, a higher proportion of employers in this segment are female employers (42% compared with 33% females overall). The Unengaged are found more in Manufacturing (17% of Manufacturing employers) and the ‘Other’ sector (18%) and are particularly hard to find in Forestry and Commercial Fishing.

18%7%

17%5%11%14%

OTHFISMANFORCONAGR

14%

124

5.8 TYING UP THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

COMMUNICATIONS

The Qualitative Research: Cross-Sector Report July 2014 detailed triggers and barriers to Health and Safety and

made recommendations for communications targeting the different typologies or segments identified. This

quantitative segmentation has identified similar segments and, therefore, the recommendations made in the

qualitative research remain valid, with some additions or changes of focus as follows:

QUALITATIVE

TYPOLOGIES

QUANTITATIVE

SEGMENTS

SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM QUALITATIVE

REPORT

AMENDMENTS - BASED ON QUANTITATIVE

SEGMENTATION

PROACTIVE GUARDIANS

Worker: Proactive Guardians (5%)

The Proactive Guardian does not need motivation to change, but needs acknowledgment, encouragement, rewards, resources and support to continue so they have a positive impact on employees/co-workers . and don’t become disillusioned and lapse into one of the other segments.

The quantitative research confirmed the presence of this segment and the recommendations for communications stand. Employer:

Proactive Guardians (10%)


Worker: Pick and Mix Pragmatist (23%)

There is the potential for high levels of motivation to change if Pick and Mix Pragmatists are reminded that good Health and Safety is the right thing to do, and given the tools to do it quickly and cost-effectively. Respect what they are doing already and build on it, challenge calculated risks that are being taken, remind them constantly without nagging.

The quantitative research confirmed the presence of this segment and recommendations for communications stand with the following addition for employers in this segment: While very much still a minority view, this segment has the highest proportion (22%) strongly motivated by a wish to avoid getting into trouble. Therefore, this segment will also benefit from being constantly aware an inspection may occur.

Employer: Pick and Mix Pragmatist (36%)

(NOT IDENTIFIED AT THE QUALITATIVE STAGE)

Worker: Pressured Pick and Mixers (13%)

(Not identified at the qualitative stage)

If these segments were to be specifically targeted, in addition to the recommendations for the Pick and Mix Pragmatists above: Reminding the Pressured Pick and Mix workers of the negative pressure and time consequences of a Health and Safety incident Reminding Dutiful Pick and Mix employers that the regulations help them meet their duty of care to their workers

Employer: Dutiful Pick and Mixers (6%)

125

QUALITATIVE

TYPOLOGIES

QUANTITATIVE

SEGMENTS

SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM QUALITATIVE

REPORT

AMENDMENTS - BASED ON QUANTITATIVE

SEGMENTATION

TICK THE BOX IMMUNITY

Worker: Unengaged Tick the Box (41%)

If employing others, the Tick the Box Immunity individual will be motivated by the business argument. They may also be motivated to change if they are persuaded to reflect on mateship and everyone pulling together and how important this is in a field of work that is inherently risky and dangerous.

The quantitative segmentation did not readily identify a unique segment primarily driven by fear of prosecution or censure (this tended to be one driver rather than a sole or primary driver). Therefore, our recommendation is to consider this segment as a ‘tick the box’ segment, a segment that does enough but no more, dropping the focus on fear of censure and immunity. The recommendation for communications still stand with some additional focus: For workers, the challenge extends to actually putting Health and Safety more firmly on the radar For employers, the challenge extends to encouraging a less casual and more systematic approach to Health and Safety

Employer: Tick the Box (34%)

RESISTING

Workers: Resisting (18%)

Resisting employees require a communications strategy that relates to being fit for work and responsibility to your workmates. Enforcement is a key motivator for the Resisting type. They need to be made aware of the reality of penalties and fines. There may also be the potential to ‘name and shame’. Ultimately, for the hardcore Resisting individuals it is peer group pressure that is most likely to effect a change.

While a resisting segment was identified among workers, it was not as evident among employers. The Resisting workers’ segment did not dispute the importance of Health and Safety but, rather was resistant to the need for so many rules and regulations. The employers segment that emerged was unengaged rather than resistant, with Health and Safety less embedded in the culture of their businesses. The communications recommendations still apply with the following additions: For Resisting workers, rights and regulations need to be understood and explained (rather than just imposed or threatened) For unengaged employers, the threat of enforcement may jolt them out of apathy. However, an initial step for this segment would be to increase awareness and understanding of employer obligations.

Employers: Unengaged (14%)

HIDDEN Not included in the Quantitative work

The Hidden need education to be made aware of the rules and their rights as workers and they also need support e.g. an anonymous migrant helpline for advice, information etc.

126

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

5.9 CONSTRUCTION SEGMENTATION

In the Construction sector, the sizes of the workers and employers segments closely mirror the size of the

segments across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors.

5.9.1 Construction Segmentation: Workers and Employers



WORKERS EMPLOYERS

PROACTIVE GUARDIAN


Strong and uncompromising advocates of Health and Safety



Value Health and Safety and try to abide by it, but sometimes rules go a bit too far – common sense can be applied


DUTIFUL)







TICK THE BOX


Less positive emotional engagement with Health and Safety, don’t think about it much

and don’t really know much about it.

More casual emotional engagement with Health and Safety than preceding

segments, will do enough to be able to tick the box in terms of compliance but not

much more.

RESISTING/UNENGAGED



tell them this. The whole Health and Safety thing is frustrating: there are too many rules, it’s unrealistic to follow all of them and they


Relatively poor attitudes to Health and Safety due to a lack of engagement (rather than frustration or negativity with the rules


MO

RE

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

LESS

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

127

Variations of note within the Construction sector areas follow. (Please note some of these differences are not

statistically significant due to small base numbers within the smaller segments, but are worth highlighting as

they help provide a profile of these segments; when a difference is not statistically significant, this is signaled by

the word ‘appears’.)

Workers:

The Proactive Guardian segment within the Construction sector contains an over-representation of

workers in heavy and civil engineering or construction (39% of this segment cf. 16% across the

Construction sector) and, related to this, an over-representation of workers in firms of 50 or more

people (35% cf. 18% across the sector). It also appears to contain an over-representation of machine

operators (34%)

The Pick and Mix Pragmatist segment contains an over-representation of builders (36% cf. 28% across

the sector) and people working in general construction (25%), landscaping (11%), demolition (16%) and

building completion services (28%). People in this segment have been in construction for a long time

(86% for 10+ years) and many are aged over 45 years of age (68%). They are more likely to have no

qualifications or just school C/NCEA level one (34% cf. 21% across the segments)

The Pressured Pick and Mix segment contains an over-representation of people working in Canterbury

but not on the rebuild (15% cf. 7% across the Construction sector), in firms of 20-49 people (19% cf.

11%) and of workers earning between $70,000-$100,000 (30% cf. 20%). A higher proportion of this

segment have been working in Construction for only 3-5 years (14% cf. 7% across the sector) and are of

other European (not NZ European) ethnicity (15% cf. 7%)

The Tick the Box Unengaged segment reflects the sector overall, with the exception that it is made up of

a higher proportion of workers in firms of 10-19 people (20% cf. 15% across the sectors)

The Resisting segment within the Construction sector contains an over-representation of people who

are employers but who work alongside their workers day to day (24% cf. 14%). It contains a greater

proportion of workers in residential building (52% cf. 41% across the sectors), working in firms

employing between 2-9 people (54% cf. 38%) and workers of NZ European ethnicity (90% cf. 77%).

Employers

The Proactive Guardian segment contains an over-representation of employers working on the

Canterbury rebuild (36% cf. 15% across the sector working on the rebuild)

The Pick and Mix Pragmatist segment contains more employers who employ temps or contractors (63%

cf. 55% across the sector)

The Tick the Box segment contains more businesses with no employees (26% cf. 13% across the sector),

more working in building (40% cf. 30%) and construction services such as hire equipment (13% cf. 7%)

The Unengaged segment contains more employers with 10-19 employees (21% cf. 10%, more employers

aged 18-29 years ( 15% cf. 6%), more female employers (38% cf. 22% across the sector) and more in

Southland (13% cf. 5%).

128

The following two maps provide visual representations of the segments in the Construction sector in terms of

attitude and behaviour, with the axes identical to those used in previous maps and explained earlier in the

report prior to chart 5.4.2. These maps place the Construction segments on the same maps as the segments of

the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors combined. As can be seen, the positions of the segments are very similar.

5.9.2 Workers’ Segmentation: Overall vs. Construction

6%

22%

14%

41%

17%

5%

23%

13%

41%

18%

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90





PROACTIVE GUARDIAN




RESISTING



OVERALL SEGMENTS

CONSTRUCTION SEGMENTS

129

5.9.3 Employers’ Segmentation: Overall vs. Construction

10%

37%

4%

38%

11%

10%

36%

6%

34%

14%

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90





PROACTIVE GUARDIAN

PICK & MIXPRAGMATISTS


TICK THE BOX

UNENGAGED


OVERALL SEGMENTS

CONSTRUCTION SEGMENTS


130

SECTION 6:

COMMUNICATION

131

6 COMMUNICATION One of the primary objectives of this research is to inform National Programmes’ design and development. The

qualitative research provided a rich understanding of the attitudes and behaviours that exist. This benchmark

quantitative study measures attitudes and behaviours, identified in the qualitative research and in the literature

as impacting on Health and Safety that can be tracked over time. Through tracking, changes will be picked up

and programmes can be adapted accordingly.

In this section we cover the following:

To identify the groups in each sector that might be more effective or appropriate advocates/ channels

for messages. Respondents were asked to identify the people or groups they would turn to for advice

about Health and Safety

To help evaluate the extent to which the programmes developed are being noticed and are impacting on

attitudes and behaviours, the quantitative research measured awareness of these programmes and the

actions taken as a result. Awareness of campaigns was measured by both unprompted and prompted

means. Very early on in the survey, we obtained a measure of unprompted awareness of advertising and

information and people wrote down what they remembered to be the main messages of the materials

they had seen or heard. Later on, respondents within each sector were prompted about a specific

campaign that had occurred targeting their sector and asked whether they had noticed this campaign

and if so, whether they had done anything differently or taken any action as a result.

Since the questions about programmes and campaigns were sector-specific, the results appear in the individual

sector reports only. In summary, awareness of the campaigns tested in this benchmark was at a good level with

the exception of the Safe Use of Machinery Campaign in Manufacturing. The proportion certain they had seen

each campaign was as follows:

In Agriculture, 54% of workers and 56% of employers were certain they had noticed the Quad Bike

Campaign

In Construction, 31% of workers and 46% of employers were certain they had noticed the Doing Nothing

is not an Option Campaign

In Forestry, 39% of workers and 57% of employers were certain they had noticed the Safer Forest

Harvesting Campaign

In Manufacturing, just 5% of workers and 9% of employers were certain they had noticed the Safe Use of

Machinery Campaign

In Commercial Fishing, 43% of workers and 65% of employers were certain they had noticed the FishSafe

Campaign.

The research shows a relationship between awareness of a campaign and some of the indicators of positive

attitudes and behaviours (however, this cannot be read as cause and effect as those more attuned to Health and

Safety might notice campaigns or those who notice campaigns might become more attuned to Health and

Safety).

132

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

6.1 SOURCES OF ADVICE

When asked where they would seek advice about something to do with Health and Safety, workers across the

four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors indicated that they were most likely to talk to their immediate boss or a

Health and Safety representative at their workplace. One in four workers would seek advice from a government

agency.

6.1.1 Where advice would be sought on Health and Safety: Workers

In all sectors except Manufacturing, the boss was the most frequently mentioned source of advice. In

Manufacturing, a Health and Safety rep was seen as an equally good source of advice as the boss. In Agriculture

and in Commercial Fishing, an industry organisation appeared in the top three sources of advice while a

government agency also appeared in the top three of these two sectors. SiteSafe rounded out the top three in

Construction.

45%

33%

25%

18%

18%

16%

15%

12%

9%

6%

3%

5%

MY BOSS

THE HEALTH AND SAFETY REP AT MY WORKPLACE

A GOVERNMENT AGENCY

A FRIEND WHO WORKS IN THE SAME INDUSTRY

SOMEONE IN MANAGEMENT (OTHER THAN MY BOSS)

AN INDUSTRY ORGANISATION

SITESAFE*

MY MENTOR / SOMEONE I WORK WITH THAT I TRUST

A TRADE SUPPLIER

A UNION / A UNION REPRESENTATIVE

MY ACCOUNTANT OR MY LAWYER

I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO I WOULD GO TO

Base: Workers from 4 Risk Sectors (n=2289)*Asked only of Construction sector

Q: If you need advice in the next few weeks about something to do with health and safety, who would you go to?

133

6.1.2 Three most frequently mentioned sources of advice: Workers

When asked to name their best sources of advice on Health and Safety matters, Employers identified a

government agency, an industry organisation and Health and Safety consultants most frequently.

6.1.3 Best sources of advice on Health and Safety matters: Employers

Government agency appeared in the top two across all sectors and was particularly strong in the Forestry and

Commercial Fishing sectors. In Agriculture, industry organisations were more prominent than in other sectors,

while SiteSafe has clearly become a good source of advice to employers in Construction.

AGRICULTURE(n=594)

CONSTRUCTION(n=615)

FORESTRY(n=377)



OTHER(n=917)

1 36% My boss 44% My boss 65% My boss 58%The health and safety rep at my workplace

55%My boss, vessel master, skipper

54% My boss

2 30%An industry organisation

37%The health and safety rep at my workplace


58% My boss 30%A governmentagency


3 29%A governmentagency

34% SiteSafe 33%Someone in management

26%Someone in management

28%An industry organisation

23%Someone in management

Base: Workers

Q: Where advice would be sought/best sources of advice

49%

40%

36%

19%

17%

11%

6%

6%

A GOVERNMENT AGENCY

AN INDUSTRY ORGANISATION

HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSULTANTS

OTHER EMPLOYERS

SITESAFE*

A TRADE SUPPLIER

MY ACCOUNTANT OR MY LAWYER

I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO I WOULD GO TO

Base: Employers from 4 Risk Sectors (n=1352)* Asked only of Construction sector

Q: If you wanted advice for your business about something to do with health and safety, which do you see as the best sources of advice?

134

6.1.4 Top three places advice would be sought: Employers

AGRICULTURE(n=381)

CONSTRUCTION(n=346)

FORESTRY(n=268)



OTHER(n=322)

1 55%An industry organisation

52% SiteSafe 69%A governmentagency

53%A governmentagency



2 45%A governmentagency


51%Health and safety consultants




3 27%Health and safety consultants




25%Other employers

32%

Health and safety consultants

Base: Employers


135

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

The following table illustrates where Construction workers would seek advice, if they needed to within the next

two weeks, and also illustrates the sources of advice that Construction employers considered best.

As mentioned earlier, of particular note is the prominence of SiteSafe as a source of advice in this sector,

particularly for employers, where over half mentioned SiteSafe as one of their best sources of advice.

6.1.5 Where advice would be sought: Construction Workers and Employers

There were some variations as follows:

Workers aged 18-24 years (69%) or 25-34 years (55%) were particularly likely to look to their boss for

advice

Young workers aged 18-24 years were also more likely than average to seek advice from a friend

working in the same industry or from their mentor or someone at work they trusted (31% and 28%

respectively)

Those working as machinery operators were also particularly likely to seek advice from a friend in the

industry (29%)

Workers supervising three or more people (51%), those working with migrant workers (57%) and those

working in heavy and civil engineering construction (64%) or land development and site preparation

(59%) were more likely to have the Health and Safety rep at work as one of their preferred sources of



WHERE ADVICE WOULD BE SOUGHT WORKERS EMPLOYERS

MY BOSS 44% -

THE HEALTH AND SAFETY REP AT MY WORKPLACE 37% -

SITESAFE 34% 52%

A GOVERNMENT AGENCY (E.G. WORKSAFE NZ) 24% 51%

SOMEONE IN MANAGEMENT (OTHER THAN MY BOSS) 20% -

A FRIEND WHO WORKS IN THE SAME INDUSTRY 18% -

MY MENTOR / SOMEONE I WORK WITH THAT I TRUST 13% -

AN INDUSTRY ORGANISATION (E.G. MASTER BUILDERS, MASTER PLUMBERS)

9% 27%

A TRADE SUPPLIER (E.G. MITRE 10, PLACEMAKERS) 5% 6%

A UNION / A UNION REPRESENTATIVE 4% -

CITIZEN'S ADVICE BUREAU OR COMMUNITY LAW OFFICE

2% 1%

MY ACCOUNTANT OR MY LAWYER 2% 2%

A HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSULTANT 1% 42%

WOULD LOOK ON THE INTERNET/GOOGLE FOR INFORMATION

1% 2%

COLLEAGUES/CO-WORKERS/OTHER EMPLOYERS 1% 23%

HAZARD CO - 4%

I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO I WOULD GO TO 2% 2%

136

advice

SiteSafe was particularly likely to be one of the preferred sources of advice for workers in a small

business with two to five employees (47%), those working on the Canterbury rebuild (44%) and workers

in building completion services (54%). It was also mentioned by more employers in Wellington (69%),

employers of migrant workers (67%), businesses with 10-19 employees (69%) and building businesses

(62%)

Self-employed workers were more likely to rely on a government agency for advice (38%)

Those whose boss was only infrequently on site (some to half the time) and those working in heavy and

civil engineering construction were more likely to cite someone in management other than their boss

(both 32%), as were those working in businesses with 100 or more employees (36%)

Employers working in building installation services (49%) were particularly likely to have an industry

organisation as one of their preferred sources of advice. Electrician employers were also more likely to

mention industry organisations (52%)

Employers with 10-19 employees were more likely to mention Health and Safety consultants as a

preferred source of advice (60%).

137

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

6.2 AWARENESS OF INFORMATION AND ADVERTISING: SECTOR SPECIFIC

Unprompted Recall At the beginning of the survey, when respondents were asked whether or not they had noticed any advertising

or information in the past 12 months that was about trying to support or improve Health and Safety among

people working in their specific industry, 70% of Construction workers and 59% of Construction employers

indicated that they had.

6.2.1 Unprompted Awareness of Advertising or Information: Construction Workers and Employers

When those who noticed information or advertising were asked to explain the main messages in their own

words, some simply provided generic comments about staying safe or healthy in the workplace. The campaign

related to working safely at heights had resonated sufficiently to be specifically recalled spontaneously by 14%

of workers aware of advertising (around 10% of workers overall) and 17% of employers aware of advertising

(around 11% of employers overall).

Construction workers noticed advertising or information in the

last 12 months

Spontaneous recall of main messages :Top 5 themes (among those aware of advertising)

50% Staying safe in the workplace/safety first

14% Work safely at heights

11%Be aware of hazards -isolate/minimise/eliminate

11% Look out for your mates

11%Look out for yourself/take responsibility for your own safety

Construction employers noticed advertising or information in last 12

months

70%

Spontaneous recall of main messages :Top 5 themes (among those aware of advertising)

17% Work safely at heights

16% Staying safe in the workplace/safety first

12% Source/where information/advertising seen

12% New/changes to legislation

8%Health and Safety awareness/compliance/ system/plan in place

59%

Base: Workers in Construction (n=608), Workers in Construction who noticed advertising (n=438)

Base: Employers in Construction (n=338), Employers in Construction who noticed advertising (n=217)

Q: Whether they have noticed advertising about improving or supporting Health and Safety in the last

12 months & what they think were the main messages

138

Prompted Recall

Later in the survey, respondents were prompted about the ‘Doing nothing is not an option’ campaign. They were

told that the campaign had focused on preventing falls when working at height and had included the words

‘Doing nothing is not an option’. With this description, 31% of Construction workers and 46% of employers were

certain they had seen or heard something about this campaign.

Among workers, this proportion increased particularly among those over the age of 55 years (42% of whom

were certain they had seen the campaign), those in Waikato (49%) and those working in finishing (43%).

Among employers, certainty that they had seen the campaign was particularly high among those in residential

building construction (57%), building structure services (63%), roofing (71%) and exterior cladding (73%).

6.2.2 Awareness – ‘Doing Nothing is not an Option’ campaign: Workers and employers

Base: Workers from Construction (n=611) Base: Employers from Construction (n=340)

Q: Have you seen or heard anything from this campaign (“Doing nothing is not an option”)

24%

23%

21%

31%DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN

THINK HAVE SEEN

UNSURE WHETHER HAVE SEEN

HAVEN'T SEEN14%

21%

18%

46%

DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN

THINK HAVE SEEN

UNSURE WHETHER HAVE SEEN

HAVEN'T SEEN

139

Awareness of ‘Doing Nothing is not an Option’ campaign

Awareness of the campaign, among workers who either thought or were certain they had seen it, was most

commonly attributed to television (37%), discussions at work (33%) or a brochure/pamphlet/information sheet

(31%). A website was mentioned by 11% of those aware, while online advertising was mentioned by only a

minority of those aware (6%). The fall from heights toolkit was mentioned by over a quarter of employers aware

of this campaign and 15% of workers.

6.2.3 Where ‘Doing Nothing is not an Option’ campaign seen or heard: Workers and Employers

Among workers, those working on one site and those working with migrant workers were more likely to indicate

discussions at work had created or enhanced awareness (47% and 44% of those aware of the campaign

respectively).

Magazines were a source of awareness for 25% overall, and for 40% of self-employed workers and for 35% of

those working with two to five employees. Self-employed workers were also more likely than average to

mention television as a source of awareness (53% cf. 37% overall), while trade events and conferences were

particularly likely to be mentioned by workers in businesses with fewer than 6 employees (29% compared with

19% overall).

The Falls from Heights toolkit was more likely to be mentioned by workers aged 45-54 years (24%) and those

supervising three or more workers (22%).

MEDIUM WORKERS EMPLOYERS

TELEVISION 37% 39%

IT WAS DISCUSSED AT WORK 33% 31%

BROCHURE/PAMPHLET/INFORMATION SHEET 31% 38%

MAGAZINE 25% 27%

INDUSTRY TRAINING ORGANISATION 21% 36%

TRADE EVENT / CONFERENCES 19% 31%

POSTER 15% 9%

FALLS FROM HEIGHTS TOOL KIT 15% 27%

ROAD SHOW 12% 19%

ON A WEBSITE 11% 18%

RADIO 9% 4%

BILLBOARD 9% 4%

NEWSPAPER 9% 9%

ONLINE ADVERTISING 6% 12%

DON'T KNOW 4% 4%

NATIONAL FIELDAYS 3% 1%

WORKSAFE NZ (INCL. REP, INSPECTOR, WORKER) - 1%

Base: Workers from Construction who definitely/think saw advertising (n=327)Base: Employers from Construction who definitely/think saw advertising (n=225)Q: Where did you see or hear of this campaign (Doing nothing is not an option)

140

Workers working on the Canterbury rebuild were particularly likely to mention an industry training organisation

(42% cf. 21% overall), while workers in Canterbury not working on the rebuild were particularly likely to mention

billboards (22% cf. 9%).

While radio was mentioned by 9% of workers aware of the campaign, this was higher among workers aged less

than 35 years, particularly among those aged 25 to 34 years (24%). Older workers 55+ years were more likely to

have seen the campaign in newspapers (16%).

Construction employers aware of the campaign were particularly likely in comparison with workers to identify

an industry training organisation (36% cf. 21%), trade event or conference (31% cf. 19%) and a falls from height

tool kit (27% cf. 15%) as the source of awareness. Employers in Canterbury aware of the campaign were

particularly likely to mention the falls from height tool kit (46% cf. 27%).

Employers involved in residential building construction were more likely than average to have been made aware

of the campaign through magazines (37% cf. 27%), a roadshow (29% cf. 19%) or a trade event or conference

(48% cf. 31%), while those working on non-residential building construction were more likely to have been made

aware through a brochure/pamphlet/information sheet (50% cf. 38%) or roadshow (30% cf. 19%).

Actions taken

Those respondents who had seen the ‘Doing Nothing is not an Option’ campaign were asked what actions they

had taken, if any, as a result of seeing the campaign.

Encouragingly, the majority of both workers and employers indicated that they had taken some positive action

as a result of this campaign. One in five workers (18%) and one in five employers (19%) stated they had not done

anything differently because they were already doing it all.

6.2.4 Changes made as a result of seeing/hearing ‘Doing Nothing is not an Option’ campaign: Workers and Employers

CHANGES WORKERS EMPLOYERS

I am/we are more aware of what others are doing when they work at heights

56% 54%

I/we use alternative approaches to make sure I am working safely (e.g. using temporary work platforms)

45% 57%

I/we have changed the way I work at heights (e.g. use full protection)

36% 46%

I/we have not done anything differently because I was doing it all

18% 19%

I/we intend to make changes to the way I work 3% 2%

We do not work at heights - 2%

Base: Workers from Construction who definitely/think saw advertising (n=326)Base: Employers from Construction who definitely/think saw advertising (n=224)Q: Which , if any, of the following happened as a result of the campaign?

141

The changes most commonly made were being more aware of what others were doing when working at heights

(56% of workers and 54% of employers aware of campaign), using alternative approaches to make sure they

were working safely (45% of workers and 57% of employers) and changing the way they worked at heights e.g.

using full protection (36% of workers and 46% of employers).

Workers working in finishing were particularly likely to be using alternative approaches or to have changed the

way they work (61% and 51% respectively), as were employers with building businesses (82% and 60%

respectively) or in exterior cladding (74% and 69% respectively). Employers in building installation services were

particularly likely to be more aware of what others were doing when they worked at heights (69%).

142

SECTION 7:

PERCEPTIONS OF

WORKSAFE NZ/MARITIME NZ

143

7 PERCEPTIONS OF WORKSAFE NZ/MARITIME NZ In this section, we consider the level of awareness and knowledge of WorkSafe NZ that exists among workers

and employers. WorkSafe NZ had only been launched for just over six months when this research was

conducted.

The work carried out by Valerie Braithwaite for Safe Work Australia highlighted the importance of a respected

and trusted work safety authority, with its presence known to workers and employers and with a reputation for

being fair.

This survey measured the extent to which respondents had heard of WorkSafe NZ and felt they knew something

about this new organisation. It also measured the ways in which respondents had been in contact with

WorkSafe NZ.

Respondents were also asked how likely they felt it was that their workplace would be visited by an inspector

from WorkSafe NZ in the following 12 months. The assumption for this question is that behaviour may change

and/or compliance may increase as the perceived likelihood of inspection increases. The proportion anticipating

a visit from the inspector will be tracked over time.

Finally, questioning was included that aimed to get a steer on where workers and employers believed WorkSafe

NZ should be focusing to improve workplace Health and Safety in New Zealand.

In the Commercial Fishing sector, identical questions were asked, but with Maritime NZ as the agency

considered.

144

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

7.1 AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF WORKSAFE NZ

Seventeen percent of workers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors had not heard of WorkSafe NZ prior

to the survey and a further 28% recognised the name but claimed to know nothing about this organisation. Just

14% of workers felt they knew at least quite a lot about WorkSafe NZ.

As might be expected, among employers awareness was higher. However, just 22% of employers felt they knew

at least quite a lot about WorkSafe NZ. A third of employers felt they knew nothing about WorkSafe NZ (10%

hadn’t heard of the organisation and 23% had only heard the name but knew nothing about it). Among large

businesses with 100 or more employees, 91% claimed at least quite a lot of knowledge about WorkSafe NZ.

7.1.1 Awareness of and familiarity with WorkSafe NZ: Workers and Employers

The following table compares awareness and knowledge among workers across all six sectors. As can be seen:

Forestry workers (30% cf. 14% across the four sectors) were more likely to know at least quite a lot

about WorkSafe NZ

Manufacturing workers (10%) were least likely to express this level of knowledge and 27% of workers in

this sector had never heard of WorkSafe NZ

30% of workers in the ‘Other’ sector had never heard of WorkSafe NZ

Given WorkSafe NZ’s relatively recent launch, awareness and knowledge of Maritime NZ was

considerably higher among workers in Commercial Fishing, with 30% professing to know a lot about this

organisation and a further 31% feeling they knew quite a lot.

NEVER HEARD OF THEM

HAVE HEARD OF THEM BUT DON’T KNOW ANYTHING

ABOUT THEM

I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM

I KNOW QUITE A LOT ABOUT THEM

I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THEM

NOT SURE 2%

7%

15%

43%

23%

10%

2%

3%

11%

39%

28%

17%

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Base: Workers from the 4 risk sectors (n=2260)Q: Did they know about WorkSafe NZ?

Base: Employers from the 4 risk sectors (n=1335)Q: Did they know about WorkSafe NZ?

145

7.1.2 Awareness of and familiarity with WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ: Workers

When employers’ levels of awareness and knowledge across the four WorkSafe NZ sectors are compared, the

same patterns emerge with levels being highest in Forestry and lowest in Manufacturing. In the ‘Other’ sector,

one in five employers had not even heard of WorkSafe NZ.

Among the Commercial Fishing sector, 43% of employers felt they knew a lot about Maritime NZ and a further

37% felt they knew quite a lot about this organisation.

7.1.3 Awareness of and familiarity with WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ: Employers

As well as measuring the level of awareness and knowledge about WorkSafe NZ, the survey also asked workers

whether or not they were aware of some of the ways in which WorkSafe NZ could be relevant and/or useful for

them. Specifically, workers were asked whether they were aware they could make a complaint relating to Health

and Safety to this organisation, seek information on Health and Safety, request an inspector to visit if they

thought a workplace was unsafe and if they knew that WorkSafe NZ had a toll-free 0800 number.

AGRICULTURE(n=591)

CONSTRUCTION(n=609)

FORESTRY(n=373)



OTHER SECTOR(n=907)

NEVER HEARD OF THEM 15% 15% 14% 27% 3% 30%

HAVE HEARD OF BUT DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM

29% 26% 21% 30% 8% 28%

I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM 42% 40% 34% 29% 26% 29%

I KNOW QUITE A LOT ABOUT THEM 9% 14% 19% 7% 31% 8%

I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THEM 3% 3% 11% 3% 30% 2%

NOT SURE 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3%

Base: Workers

Q: Did they know about WorkSafe NZ?

AGRICULTURE(n=377)

CONSTRUCTION(n=337)

FORESTRY(n=266)



OTHER SECTOR(n=313)

NEVER HEARD OF THEM 9% 10% 1% 13% - 20%

HAVE HEARD OF BUT DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM

25% 19% 6% 25% 3% 25%

I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM 48% 40% 25% 40% 17% 38%

I KNOW QUITE A LOT ABOUT THEM 14% 20% 31% 11% 37% 10%

I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THEM 4% 9% 35% 7% 43% 5%

NOT SURE - 2% 1% 3% - 3%

Base: EmployersQ: Did they know about WorkSafe NZ?

146

This question was just asked of those workers who indicated they at least knew a little bit about WorkSafe NZ

(the assumption being that those who had never heard of it or had only heard the name would have no

knowledge in these areas). However, to provide an overall view among all workers in the risk sectors in New

Zealand, the following percentages have been re-based to the total sample of all workers.

On this basis, just a minority of workers were aware of each of these four areas. Forty five percent of workers

knew (or at least assumed) they could access information from WorkSafe NZ, while just 28% were aware

WorkSafe NZ has a toll free number.

7.1.4 Knowledge about contacting WorkSafe NZ: Workers

As a general rule, awareness was greatest for all areas among older workers (55 years and over).

When sectors were compared, workers in Forestry were more aware that WorkSafe NZ could be contacted for

each purpose and Construction and Agriculture workers were also more likely to be aware than workers from

Manufacturing. As can be seen, awareness among the Commercial Fishing sector that Maritime NZ could be

contacted for each purpose was considerably higher.

7.1.5 Knowledge about contacting WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ: Workers

Base: Workers in 4 risk sectors (n=2236-2255)Q: Did they know that they can contact WorkSafe NZ to…?

28%

34%

45%

38%TO MAKE A COMPLAINT

TO GET INFORMATION

TO ASK FOR AN INSPECTOR VISIT

THROUGH A TOLL FREE NUMBER

WORKERS

% YESAGRICULTURE

(n=579-588)


FORESTRY(n=369-372)


COMMERCIAL FISHING (n=489-

496)

OTHER SECTOR(n=908-911)

To make a complaint about health and safety

38% 42% 50% 26% 65% 28%

To get information or advice on health and safety

46% 50% 54% 32% 71% 34%

To ask for an inspector to visit a workplace if you thought it was unsafe

35% 39% 47% 22% 62% 21%

Through a toll-free 0800 phone number

30% 29% 37% 21% 55% 23%

Base: WorkersQ: Did they know that they contact WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ…

147

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

In the Construction sector, the level of awareness and knowledge of WorkSafe NZ was lower than in the Forestry

sector but higher than in the Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors.

Among workers, 15% had never heard of WorkSafe NZ and a further 26% had heard of this organisation but

knew nothing. Only 17% claimed to know at least quite a lot.

The picture among Construction employers was slightly better, with 29% knowing at least quite a lot but still

10% had never heard of WorkSafe NZ and a further 19% had heard of the organisation but knew nothing about

it.

7.1.6 Awareness of and familiarity with WorkSafe NZ: Construction Workers and Employers

Among workers, awareness of WorkSafe NZ was higher among those working in Canterbury but not on the

rebuild (23% cf. 17% knew at least quite a lot), those managing or supervising three or more people (26%), those

working 51 or more hours per week (26%), those working in non-residential building construction (23%) and

those in general construction (26%).

Among employers, the proportion who claimed to know a lot about WorkSafe NZ was higher among those

working on the Canterbury rebuild (24% cf. 9% overall) and those employing migrant workers (21%).

NEVER HEARD OF THEM

HAVE HEARD OF THEM BUT DON’T KNOW ANYTHING

ABOUT THEM

I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM

I KNOW QUITE A LOT ABOUT THEM

I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THEM

NOT SURE 2%

9%

20%

40%

19%

10%

2%

3%

14%

40%

26%

15%

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Base: Workers from Construction (n=609) Base: Employers from Construction (n=337)

Q: Did they know about WorkSafe NZ?

148

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

7.2 CONTACT WITH WORKSAFE NZ

Those respondents who knew at least a little about WorkSafe NZ were asked to indicate, from a list provided,

the ways in which they had had contact with this organisation in the previous 12 months. Again, to provide an

overall view among all workers and employers in the risk sectors in New Zealand, the following percentages

have been re-based to the total sample.

Across the four WorkSafe NZ risk sectors, a third of workers and 41% of employers had had contact with

WorkSafe NZ in the past 12 months.

Both workers and employers in the Forestry sector were more likely to have had contact with WorkSafe NZ. Only

a minority of workers across the other sectors had had any contact. Seventy two percent of Commercial Fishing

workers and 83% of Fishing employers had had contact with Maritime NZ in the same time period.

7.2.1 Proportion had contact with WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ in past 12 months: Workers and Employers

Among the list of means of contact shown to respondents:

The most common source of contact was seeing materials or information produced by WorkSafe NZ

(28% of employers and 22% of workers in the four risk sectors)

18% of employers in the four risk sectors had visited WorkSafe NZ’s website, peaking at 39% among

Forestry employers. By contrast, just 7% of workers across these sectors had visited the website

9% of employers and 8% of workers in the four risk sectors had seen a Workplace NZ inspector in the 12

months period (again peaking among Forestry employers at 47% and Forestry workers at 33%).

30%

83%

36%

77%

48%

38%

18%

72%

24%

53%

36%

34% AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS EMPLOYERS



Q: In the last 12 months, in which of the following ways have you had contact with

WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ?


Q: In the last 12 months, in which of the following ways have you had contact with WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ?

149

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

In total, 35% of Construction workers and 48% of employers had had some form of contact with WorkSafe NZ in

the past 12 months.

In this sector, seeing materials or information produced by WorkSafe NZ emerged as one of the main sources of

contact with WorkSafe NZ (for 23% of workers and 31% of employers).

Over a quarter of Construction employers (28%) had had contact via the WorkSafe NZ website, as had 9% of

workers.

One in ten workers and 16% of employers indicated that an inspector had visited their workplace. This was

slightly higher among workers in Canterbury (14%), those in non-residential building construction (14%) and

building structure services (18%).

Those working in residential building construction were more likely to have seen materials or information

produced by WorkSafe NZ (28%).

7.2.2 Contact with WorkSafe NZ in past 12 months: Construction Workers and Employers

23%

10%

9%

3%

2%

1%

64%

31%

16%

28%

11%

2%

3%

52%

I HAVE SEEN MATERIALS OR INFORMATION PRODUCED BY WORKSAFE NZ

AN INSPECTOR HAS VISITED MY WORKPLACE

I VISITED THEIR WEBSITE

I HAVE PHONED THEM FOR ADVICE OR INFORMATION

DURING NATIONAL FIELDAYS

I HAVE ATTENDED COURSES AND WORKSHOPS

HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT

WORKERS EMPLOYERSBase: Workers from Construction (n=613)Base: Employers from Construction (n=333)Q: In the last 12 months, in which of the following ways have you had contact with WorkSafe NZ

150

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

7.3 LIKELIHOOD OF INSPECTOR VISITING

Those respondents who knew at least a little about WorkSafe NZ were asked how likely they thought it was that

a WorkSafe NZ inspector would visit their workplace or business in the next 12 months (using a 5-point scale

from very unlikely to likely).

At the time of the survey, 28% of the workers who knew at least a little about WorkSafe NZ across the four risk

sectors felt that a visit was likely (4-5 on the 5-point scale) while 37% considered it to be unlikely (1-2). Among

employers, 29% felt a visit was likely and 26% unlikely with the remainder uncertain.

As can be seen from the chart following, the majority of workers and employers in Forestry felt that an

inspection was likely in the next 12 months. There was also a higher than average likelihood expressed by the

Commercial Fishing sector in terms of a Maritime NZ inspector visiting. The Agriculture sector was less inclined

to consider an inspection likely, as was the lower-risk ‘Other’ sector.

7.3.1 Proportion feeling it is likely inspector will visit workplace in next 12 months: Workers and Employers

12%

59%

25%

71%

42%

21%

16%

44%

33%

51%

32%

19% AGRICULTURE

CONSTRUCTION

FORESTRY

MANUFACTURING

COMMERCIAL FISHING

OTHER

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

Q: How likely do you think it is that an inspector will visit workplace next 12 months (5 point scale where 1= very unlikely and 5 = very likely}Note: All sectors were asked about WorkSafe NZ inspector while Commercial Fishing sector was asked about a Maritime NZ inspector

Base: Workers with at least a little knowledge of WorkSafe NZ/Maritime NZ

(Agriculture, n=329; Construction, n=362; Forestry, n=238; Manufacturing, n=298;

Commercial Fishing, n=440; Other sector, n=382)

Base: Employers with at least a little knowledge of WorkSafeNZ/Maritime NZ (Agriculture n=254; Construction n=224; Forestry n=245; Manufacturing n=237; Commercial Fishing n=125; Other sector, n=186)

151

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

7.4 WHERE WORKSAFE NZ SHOULD FOCUS TO IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY

All respondents were asked to consider how much of an impact each of a number of initiatives would have on

improving workplace Health and Safety in their particular industry, if WorkSafe NZ was to focus on that initiative.

They responded using a 5-point scale ranging from no impact through to very big impact.

The following chart illustrates the proportion of workers and employers who indicated increasing focus in each

area would have a big impact (4-5 out of 5). The initiatives are ranked from most frequently rated as having a big

impact (working closely with industry and employer groups at the top) to least frequently rated as having a big

impact (working closely with worker groups such as unions at the bottom).

Many of the initiatives achieved similar ratings. The views of workers and employers were quite consistent, with

the rank order being the same and with similar proportions believing each would have a big impact. The largest

variations were that workers were more inclined to believe workplace inspections would have a big impact

compared to employers, and workers were also more positive than employers about the potential impact of

WorkSafe NZ working closely with workers groups such as unions.

The fining, prosecuting or closing down of workplaces when unsafe practices were found was the initiative most

frequently rated as likely to have a very big impact by both workers and employers.

7.4.1 Perceived likely size of impact of WorkSafe NZ increasing its focus on various interventions: Workers and Employers

Base: Employers from the 4 Risk Sectors (n=1335-1347)Base: Workers from the 4 Risk Sectors (n=2255-2268)

Q: If WorkSafe NZ was to increase its focus on the following areas, how much of an impact do you think it would have on improving health and safety in your industry (5-point scale where1=no impact and 5=very big impact)

10%

21%

34%

26%

26%

29%

16%

29%

20%

28%

35%

33%

VERY BIG (5) BIG (4)

WORKERS EMPLOYERSWORKING CLOSELY WITH INDUSTRY

AND EMPLOYER GROUPS

EDUCATION OF EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS ON THEIR LEGAL

RESPONSIBILITIES

HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF WORKPLACES

FINING, PROSECUTING, OR CLOSING DOWN WORKPLACES WHEN UNSAFE

PRACTICES ARE FOUND

INFORMATION ON HOW TO STAYSAFE AT WORK

WORKING CLOSELY WITH WORKER GROUPS SUCH AS UNIONS

18%

23%

37%

32%

29%

31%

21%

30%

21%

28%

32%

33%

NET NET

64%

60%

60%

58%

53%

39%

62%

61%

54%

54%

50%

26%

BIG (4) VERY BIG (5)

152

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

When the Construction sector’s responses to this question are considered, it can be seen that, compared with

workers and employers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors overall, this sector was more inclined to

think initiatives would have a big impact. This was particularly noticeable among employers.

As with the four sectors overall, the most favoured initiative in the Construction sector was working closely with

industry and employer groups, followed by education on legal responsibilities and workplace Health and Safety

inspections. Again, being fined, prosecuted or shut down was the initiative with the largest proportion believing

this would have a very big impact, particularly among workers.

7.4.2 Perceived likely impact of WorkSafe NZ increasing its focus on various interventions: Construction Workers and Employers

Workers working on utilities were particularly likely to think workplace Health and Safety inspections would

have a big/very big impact (85% cf. 66% across the sector as a whole), Māori workers to think education on legal

responsibilities would have a big/very big impact (78% cf. 65%), those working with mobile plant or below

ground level to think fining, prosecuting or shutting down unsafe workplaces would have a big/very big impact

(both 83% cf. 62%) and those working in finishing to think information on staying safe at work would have a

big/very big impact (65% cf. 53%).

Those whose boss was on site less than half the time were more likely than average to think all initiatives would

have a big/very big impact.

Base: Employers from Construction (n=341-345)Base: Workers from Construction (n=608-610)

Q: If WorkSafe NZ was to increase its focus on the following areas, how much of an impact do you think it would have on improving health and safety in your industry (5-point scale where1=no impact and 5=very big impact)

17%

30%

39%

36%

32%

38%

18%

30%

24%

36%

32%

33%

VERY BIG (5) BIG (4)

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

19%

24%

40%

32%

34%

33%

24%

29%

22%

33%

31%

34%

NET NET WORKING CLOSELY WITH INDUSTRY

AND EMPLOYER GROUPS

HEALTH AND SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF WORKPLACES

EDUCATION OF EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS ON THEIR LEGAL

RESPONSIBILITIES

FINING, PROSECUTING, OR CLOSING DOWN WORKPLACES WHEN UNSAFE

PRACTICES ARE FOUND

INFORMATION ON HOW TO STAY SAFE AT WORK

WORKING CLOSELY WITH WORKER GROUPS SUCH AS UNIONS

67%

66%

65%

62%

53%

43%

71%

64%

71%

63%

60%

35%

BIG (4) VERY BIG (5)

153

Among employers, those working with migrant workers were particularly likely to think working closely with

industry and employer groups (87% cf. 71%) and with worker groups such as unions (48% cf. 35%) would have a

big/very big impact. Employers working in building completion services were particularly likely to cite fining,

prosecution or closing down unsafe workplaces (75% cf. 63%), while those working in pre-construction were

more likely than average to think workplace Health and Safety inspections would have a big/very big impact

(73% cf. 64%).

Employers who had had a serious harm incident were more likely to mention working closely with unions (45%

cf. 32% of those who hadn’t had an incident) and to mention fining or prosecuting (73% cf. 60% of those who

hadn’t had an incident).

154

CROSS-SECTOR VIEW

7.5 WORKERS’ AND EMPLOYERS’ VIEWS ON WHAT WOULD MAKE THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE

At the very end of the survey, having been thinking about Health and Safety issues, respondents were asked to

consider all the aspects covered in the survey and to write down, in their own words, what they thought would

make the most difference to improving Health and Safety in their industry.

Some 59% of workers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors took the opportunity to convey their

thoughts on what would make the most difference. Their verbatim comments have been coded into themes.

The most common themes to emerge are summarised in this section.

7.5.1 Things that could make the most difference in improving Health and Safety at workplace: Workers

As can be seen, the two most common themes to emerge from workers were to encourage personal

responsibility and to educate workers and management on safe practices and their legal rights and

responsibilities.

WHAT COULD IMPROVE SAFETY? WORKERS

ENCOURAGE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY 9%

EDUCATION - EDUCATE WORKERS AND MANAGEMENT ON SAFE PRACTICES, THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

9%

PROPER TRAINING FOR THE JOB/FAMILIARISATION WITH THE EQUIPMENT 6%

HEALTH & SAFETY AWARENESS AND PAYING ATTENTION TO SAFE WORK PRACTICES 5%

AWARENESS AND MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDS 4%

ENCOURAGE USE OF COMMON SENSE 4%

GREATER LEVEL OF INSPECTION OF WORK SITES (INCL. ON BOARD FISHING VESSELS) 4%

EMPLOYERS/OWNERS/MANAGERS TO BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE/TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR WORKERS

4%

HEALTH AND SAFETY COURSES/WORKSHOPS (INCL COMPETITIVELY PRICED/MANDATORY) 3%

VISITS/MENTORING BY HEALTH & SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES (INCL. WORKSAFE AND OSH) 3%

LESS PRESSURE TO MEET HIGH PRODUCTION TARGETS 3%

PROVIDE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR STAFF 3%

PENALISE/PROSECUTE EMPLOYERS/EMPLOYEES FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFE WORK PRACTICES 3%

PROVISION/USE/MAINTENANCE OF APPROPRIATE SAFETY GEAR 3%

HAVE A VIABLE/WORKABLE HEALTH & SAFETY POLICY - CLEAR/CONCISE/RELEVANT RULES 3%

PROVISION OF READILY AVAILABLE INFORMATION 3%

MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE TO LIAISE ABOUT SAFETY 2%

CONTINUED COMMUNICATION/REMINDERS OF HAZARDS/SAFE WORK PRACTICES/HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

2%

REGULAR UPDATES/REFRESHER COURSES ON HEALTH AND SAFETY 2%

ENCOURAGE REPORTING OF ''NEAR MISSES'' AND HAZARDS 2%

NOT WAVING A BIG STICK THREATENING CONSEQUENCES 2%

A WILLINGNESS TO LOOK OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER 2%

CHANGE THE ''SHE'LL BE RIGHT'' CULTURE IN THE WORKPLACE 2%

I AM VERY COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY IN MY WORKPLACE 2%

KEEPING ALERT (INCL FATIGUE MANAGEMENT) 2%

ADVERTISING SAFE PRACTICE-THROUGH MEDIA/POSTERS AT WORK 2%

Base: Workers from the 4 Risk Sectors (n=2235)Note – only 2% or more results are reported

Q: What would make the most difference to improve safety

155

There were some noteworthy variations by sector as follows:

Agriculture workers were more likely to emphasise the need to encourage greater personal

responsibility and to encourage use of common sense

Forestry workers were more likely to feel that appropriate training and familiarisation with the

equipment would make the greatest difference, along with reduced pressure to meet high production

targets, fatigue management and increasing inspections of work sites

Manufacturing workers were also more likely to mention increased inspection of work sites

Commercial Fishing workers more often mentioned appropriate training and familiarisation with

equipment.

When employers were asked the same question, 53% of employers from the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors

took the opportunity to respond (particularly high among Forestry employers at 77%).

7.5.2 Things that could make the most difference in improving Health and Safety at workplace: Employers

The same top two themes of education and personal responsibility emerged with employers, but the third most

prevalent theme to emerge was visits or mentoring from Health and Safety representatives (e.g. from WorkSafe

NZ). Visits or mentoring were mentioned more frequently by employers in the Construction and Forestry

sectors. Other variations of note:

More Agriculture employers mentioned awareness and management of hazards

WHAT COULD IMPROVE SAFETY? EMPLOYERS

EDUCATION - EDUCATE WORKERS AND MANAGEMENT ON SAFE PRACTICES AND THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

9%

ENCOURAGE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY 8%

VISITS/MENTORING BY HEALTH & SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES (INCL. WORKSAFE AND OSH)

5%

ENCOURAGE USE OF COMMON SENSE 4%

HAVE A VIABLE/WORKABLE HEALTH & SAFETY POLICY - CLEAR/CONCISE/RELEVANT RULES

4%

PROPER TRAINING FOR THE JOB/FAMILIARISATION WITH THE EQUIPMENT 4%

PROVIDE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR STAFF 3%

NOT WAVING A BIG STICK THREATENING CONSEQUENCES 3%

PROVISION OF READILY AVAILABLE INFORMATION 3%

AWARENESS AND MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDS 3%

HEALTH AND SAFETY COURSES/WORKSHOPS (INCL COMPETITIVELY PRICED/MANDATORY)

3%

CONTINUED COMMUNICATION/REMINDERS OF HAZARDS/SAFE WORK PRACTICES/HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

2%

PROVISION/USE/MAINTENANCE OF APPROPRIATE SAFETY GEAR 2%

REWARD THOSE EMPLOYEES/BUSINESSES WITH A GOOD WORK SAFE ETHIC/RECORD 2%

HEALTH & SAFETY AWARENESS AND PAYING ATTENTION TO SAFE WORK PRACTICES 2%

PENALISE/PROSECUTE EMPLOYERS/EMPLOYEES FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFE WORK PRACTICES

2%

MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE TO LIAISE ABOUT SAFETY 2%

Base: Employers from the 4 Risk Sectors (n=1331)Note – only 2% or more results are reported

Q: What would make the most difference to improve safety

156

Like the workers in the industry, Forestry employers were more likely to feel that appropriate training

and familiarisation with the equipment would make the greatest difference, along with reduced

pressure to meet high production targets. They were also more likely to mention a higher calibre of staff

would improve safety

Commercial Fishing employers were more likely to mention the need for a drug and alcohol policy and a

need to reduce the cost of compliance.

Groups of workers of concern

Employers were also given the opportunity to identify any particular groups of workers that they had concerns

or suggestions about.

Just 23% of employers in the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors identified groups of workers in this context

(highest among Forestry employers at 40%).

The groups identified most frequently were:

Youths/apprentices mentioned by 6% of employers – these workers were singled out for a variety of

reasons including; they don't follow instructions, love of speed, think themselves bullet proof, lack of

responsibility, lack common sense, inability to assess risk

Older workers/aging workforce/workers who had been in job for some time mentioned by 3% of

employers – these workers were singled out due to: she'll be right attitude, set in their ways not

adaptable to change, become complacent

People with language difficulties/English as a second language (mentioned by 2% of employers)

People with literacy/numeracy problems (mentioned by 2%): inability to read/write/follow

instructions/low intelligence/poorly/less educated workers (need for visual information rather than

words)

Foreign workers /immigrants (mentioned by 2%); felt to lack safety awareness, little experience in

Health and Safety ideas or local rules, poor driving skills on NZ roads

Drug users/drugs in the workplace (mentioned by 2%); including mention of legal highs/drug testing of

all workers required/alcohol/ workers drinking late at night.

Various groups were more likely to be mentioned as an issue in the following sectors:

Drug users were mentioned as an issue by more employers in Agriculture (4%), Forestry (6%) and

Commercial Fishing (5%)

Youth workers were mentioned more often by Construction (7%), Agriculture (8%) and Forestry (9%)

employers

Construction employers also made more mention of issues with older workers (5%)

Manufacturing employers were more likely to mention workers with language barriers as an issue (4%)

Forestry employers were also more likely to mention a range of other concerns including concerns with

unskilled, inexperienced or new workers (7%), perceiving them to be less likely to take Health and Safety

on board and perceiving the need for more training or courses to be available. Forestry employers were

also grappling more with employees lacking awareness of or accepting their individual responsibility and

157

liability for safety (cavalier attitude), with some being perceived as unwilling to change.

158

SECTION 8:

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

159

8 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Workers and employers attest to the importance of workplace Health and Safety but it is not given as high a

priority as desirable.

Attitudes expressed throughout the survey confirm that workers and employers attest to the importance of

Health and Safety. Nevertheless, the priority it is given over other considerations at work/in business could be

increased. Ideally, workers and employers should value Health and Safety for its own sake. However,

communications to encourage safer behaviour will be more effective if they make the link between good Health

and Safety and the positive impact this has on other key motivators identified in the qualitative research and

reinforced here.

For the Construction sector, pride in doing good work is a particularly strong motivator for workers and

employers are particularly motivated by business reputation.

Workers acknowledge they have a very big personal responsibility for keeping themselves and others safe at

work, but do not always carry this through to behaviour.

It is encouraging that the great majority of workers felt they had a very big personal responsibility for Health and

Safety. However, this should really be universal. The research indicates that young workers may be less inclined

to acknowledge a very big personal responsibility and this may need to be emphasised more in training and

induction. In addition, when workers and employers were given the opportunity at the end of the survey to

identify the one thing that would make the most difference to improving Health and Safety in their industries,

encouraging personal responsibility was most frequently mentioned along with increased education.

A potential lack of acting responsibly in New Zealand workplaces is also evident from other findings in this

research. For example, despite most workers expressing confidence that they knew how to keep safe and well at

work, many respondents indicated that either they or their workmates at least occasionally took risks such as

working when overtired or when sick or injured, making a mistake through being distracted or taking short cuts

to save time.

While employers also acknowledge the very big responsibility of the workers themselves for their Health and

Safety, acknowledgement of the responsibility of other parties such as the employers themselves and

particularly, others with a presence or influence in the sector (such as the industry bodies, companies and

machinery and vehicle manufacturers, and property owners), could be stronger.

Employers concurred with the workers that the workers themselves had a very big responsibility for their own

Health and Safety. However, the degree of responsibility assigned to other groups suggests that

acknowledgement of shared responsibility could be increased.

160

Open communication and positive Health and Safety leadership has a strong influence on creating safer

workplaces.

This research supports the conclusion drawn from the qualitative stage and the work carried out by Valerie

Braithwaite that responsive dialogue, where open communication across all levels in an organisation leads to

identifying problems and fixing them, is a main driver of workers’ capacity to self-manage safety issues. It also

supports the conclusion that perceptions of bosses not caring can lead to a disregard for safety in the workplace.

In the WorkSafe NZ survey, those workers who had experienced a serious harm incident rated the leadership

shown by their immediate bosses and the extent to which responsive dialogue took place, less positively than

those who had not experienced a serious harm incident.

In the WorkSafe NZ survey also, employers were more likely than workers to rate their business more positively

with respect to leadership and responsive dialogue. This implies that employers might benefit from evaluating

the behaviour of those in supervisory roles and the extent to which open and constructive dialogue is seen to

occur from the perspective of their workers. Specific areas where perceptions are currently less positive that

could be focused on, are praising and rewarding safe behaviour, supervisors never being seen to turn a blind eye

to workers taking short cuts or risks, employers encouraging innovation in relation to Health and Safety and

ensuring workers know they would be fully supported if they suggested stopping work because of a potential

hazard.

WorkSafe NZ could support this; for example, by developing best practice guidance, encouraging/supporting

training around communication skills for supervisors and providing materials or supporting schemes that

recognise good Health and Safety behaviour.

Adequate recording and reporting of hazards, near misses and serious harm incidents is currently more the

exception than the rule.

The WorkSafe NZ research also highlighted that, while informal communications around Health and Safety in the

workplace may be in place, the recording of hazards, near misses and serious harm incidents in the workplace is

possibly more the exception rather than the rule currently. These results indicate that there would be benefit in

assisting businesses to ensure more formalised processes are in place to ensure reporting and recording of

incidents occurs.

While awareness of risk is relatively high, there is a strong sense of an “it won’t happen to me” mentality.

It would appear that workers and employers are reasonably aware of the threats to Health and Safety in their

industries. Workers feel confident that they know how to keep themselves safe and (to a slightly lesser extent)

healthy at work. Almost all workers feel safe at work and just one in nine Agriculture workers see even a

moderate risk that they or a workmate could get seriously injured at work. However, other results suggest a

degree of complacency.

161

Many risky situations (such as working while sick or injured) occur in workplaces at least occasionally, and

preventative actions such as wearing protective gear or fully checking machinery before use are not always

taken. These results indicate that more work needs to be done to ensure that workers are personally and

constantly engaged with managing their own and others safety.

Some employers may also be complacent, contributed to by a lack of awareness of the real situation in the

workplace

It is also evident that employers are less aware than workers of the real prevalence of incidents and near misses

and also the prevalence of potentially risky behaviours in the workplace. This lack of awareness may contribute

to the fact that only a very small proportion of Construction employers (8%) see even a moderate risk that

someone in their business could get seriously hurt at work. In other words, employers too may be complacent

partly due to being unaware of the true situation. Having more formalised processes in place to support open

and frank dialogue may assist this (e.g. reporting and recording all near misses, hazards and serious harm

incidents).

In Construction, it would appear that formal processes are more likely to be in place than in some other sectors.

The qualitative research suggested that changes in Health and Safety practice that have occurred within the

sector have meant that the inherent dangers of working on a construction site are perceived to have lessened.

In this survey, 49% of employers in the sector said they had made significant changes to Health and Safety

systems and processes in the past 12 months, a higher proportion than all other sectors except Forestry. The

qualitative research concluded that there was the perception that working in the Construction sector is safer

than it once was and to a certain extent this has led to some complacency in the sector.

The challenge in Construction will be to ensure that formal structures and practices these do not simply act as

‘lip service’ to better Health and Safety culture but that the actions of the bosses and all in the workplace

support a belief in Health and Safety.

Health is given a lot less focus than Safety

This research supports the belief that there is considerably less focus on health than on safety. For example,

while 32% of those workers across the four WorkSafe NZ high-risk sectors who indicated they had experienced a

serious harm cited a stress-related or mental illness, just 14% of those employers who had experienced a serious

harm incident with one or more of their workers cited this issue. In other words, the full extent of health-related

issues such as mental illness and temporary and permanent health issues arising from work appears to be

unknown to employers and hence, is unlikely to have been given an appropriate amount of focus.

WorkSafe NZ is in a good position to establish itself as a trusted and respected regulator of Health and Safety

While most workers and employers are aware of WorkSafe NZ, most currently know very little about the

organisation. The research confirmed that most workers and employers see the government as taking a

supportive role in Health and Safety. They want WorkSafe NZ to work alongside employers and industries to

improve Health and Safety, to educate workers and employers of their legal responsibilities but they also believe

that being aware WorkSafe NZ has fined, prosecuted or closed down workplaces with unsafe practices would

162

improve Health and Safety performance in businesses. The challenge will be to get the balance right between

facilitator and enforcer, particularly among those segments of workers and employers that begrudge the ‘big

stick’ approach.

Workers and employers are receptive to communications

The communications campaigns tested in this benchmark survey are encouraging in terms of the level of

awareness they have created and the actions those aware of them claim to have taken as a result. These

findings suggest that, even though workers claim high levels of confidence in their knowledge and skills for

keeping healthy and safe at work, they notice and act upon additional information such as that provided through

these campaigns. Most employers who had seen a campaign also indicated they had made changes on the basis

of the campaigns run.

In both the qualitative and quantitative research, some employers indicated that they would appreciate further

mentoring or assistance with Health and Safety issues; therefore, these campaigns go some way to fulfilling this

need. However, WorkSafe NZ could also use the success of the SiteSafe initiative in the Construction sector in

terms of its advisor role. SiteSafe was mentioned by 52% of Construction employers and 34% of Construction

workers as one of the best sources of advice on Health and Safety issues.

The Forestry sector provides a strong indication that a concerted focus and effort on a sector leads to change

Finally, throughout this report, the Forestry sector stands out as the sector with the greatest focus on Health

and Safety and the most positive attitudes towards Health and Safety. This sector has been under the spotlight

in recent times with its poor safety record and a number of interventions have been put in place. While we do

not have a benchmark of Forestry attitudes and behaviour prior to the spotlight being placed on this sector, it is

reasonable to assume that these will have changed considerably over this period. The more positive attitudes

evident in Forestry workers and employers through this research could be considered attainable targets for

other sectors.

However, within Forestry, there is still a long way to go. The number of near misses in Forestry is very high.

While it could be argued that an increased awareness of Health and Safety could have created a heightened

awareness of near misses (a positive interpretation), it also illustrates the very high potential in this sector for

serious harm incidents if safe practices are not followed.

The focus on Health and Safety for the Canterbury rebuild provides further evidence that a concerted focus

and effort leads to change

Throughout this survey, there were indications that employers in the Construction sector in Canterbury had a

greater focus on Health and Safety than employers in other areas. There were also indications that Canterbury

workers had more positive perceptions of their bosses in terms of their leadership around Health and Safety.

163

9. APPENDIX I:

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

164

9 APPENDIX I: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Sample description The following tables provide a profile of the respondents in each of the sectors:

9.1.1 Sample description: Workers by sector


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

WEIGHTED %

GENDERMALE 74 96 96 81 92 48

FEMALE 26 4 4 19 8 52

AGE

18 – 24 YEARS 4 4 7 4 5 3

25 - 34 YEARS 11 20 22 15 16 15

35 – 44 YEARS 16 22 27 22 22 23

45 – 54 YEARS 24 25 24 29 26 27

55 + YEARS 46 29 21 30 31 32

NEW ZEALAND EUROPEAN

88 77 72 64 78 75

ETHNICITY MAORI 7 11 32 19 23 10

PACIFIC 0 4 1 9 2 3

ASIAN 1 3 - 6 1 5

BUSINESS SIZE

SELF EMPLOYED 25 15 6 2 15 9

2 TO 5 EMPLOYEES 54 26 18 9 43 13

6 TO 9 EMPLOYEES 6 12 27 7 5 9

10 TO 19 EMPLOYEES 6 15 21 12 5 11

20 TO 49 EMPLOYEES 2 11 14 17 13 15

50 TO 99 EMPLOYEES 2 4 6 14 4 9

100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES

3 14 6 34 11 29

REGION

NORTHERN REGION 12 38 17 33 18 33

CENTRAL REGION 47 31 46 32 22 27

SOUTHERN REGION 39 39 41 37 66 43

* Region is defined as follows:Northern includes: Northland, AucklandCentral includes: Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki, Manawatu-WhanganuiSouthern includes: Wellington plus all of the South Island

165

9.1.2 Sample Description: Employers


FISHINGOTHER SECTOR

WEIGHTED %

# OF EMPLOYEES

NONE 14 13 11 7 23 7

1 TO 5 EMPLOYEES 69 52 38 45 66 57

6 TO 9 EMPLOYEES 6 16 22 16 4 13

10 TO 19 EMPLOYEES 6 10 18 11 - 12

20 TO 49 EMPLOYEES 3 5 8 11 1 4

50 TO 99 EMPLOYEES 1 2 2 5 1 4

100 OR MORE EMPLOYEES

1 2 2 4 4 3

REGION

NORTHERN REGION 11 25 11 32 20 34

CENTRAL REGION 47 27 56 32 28 32

SOUTHERN REGION 36 46 33 39 55 38

* Region is defined as follows:Northern includes: Northland, AucklandCentral includes: Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki, Manawatu-WhanganuiSouthern includes: Wellington plus all of the South Island

166

10. APPENDIX II:

OVERALL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

167

10 APPENDIX II: OVERALL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New Zealand has unacceptably high rates of workplace fatalities and serious harm injuries. The five sectors


WorkSafe New Zealand (WorkSafe NZ) is the regulator responsible for the Agriculture, Construction, Forestry

and Manufacturing sectors while Maritime New Zealand (Maritime NZ) is the regulator for the maritime industry

which includes the Commercial Fishing sector.

WorkSafe NZ’s National Programmes seek to engage workers and employers in improving workplace Health and

Safety in New Zealand. Nielsen was commissioned to carry out baseline research that would a) inform the design

and development of National Programmes and b) provide a benchmark measure of attitudes and behaviours to

be tracked over time.






employers from outside these five high-risk sectors, provided a ‘lower risk sector’ point of comparison.

This document reports on the quantitative stage of the research programme. A survey, using a self-completion

method, was undertaken with workers and employers. Structured questionnaires were designed for workers

and employers based on extensive consultation with WorkSafe NZ and Maritime NZ and on the insights provided

by the qualitative research.
















168



others.

A total of 3751 workers and 1903 employers completed the survey. The fieldwork took place between July and

September 2014.

The following summary of results focuses on high-level indicators from the combined responses given by

respondents across the four risk sectors.

10.1 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CONTEXT

To put attitudes to Health and Safety in context, we first looked at where Health and Safety sat in the priorities

of workers and employers. Aspects of workplace culture were also examined: specifically, who takes

responsibility for workers’ Health and Safety, what leadership and responsive dialogue is like in workplaces and

what formal structures are in place to support a Health and Safety culture.


IDENTIFIED HEALTH AND SAFETY AS ONE OF THEIR THREE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AT WORK/IN THEIR BUSINESS

Pride in doing a good job was a particularly important motivation for many workers, as was achieving a good

work/life balance and having a regular income. Among employers, keeping workers healthy and safe was a very

important motivation across all the high-risk sectors, but strongest among Forestry employers. Concern for

Health and Safety among employers was also influenced by the desire to avoid cost to the business from the loss

of productivity resulting from serious harm incidents.

It is important that there is a shared responsibility for Health and Safety among all who have an influence in this

area.


FELT THAT THE WORKERS THEMSELVES HAD A VERY BIG RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY WHILE AT WORK

Following the workers themselves, the immediate boss was felt to have a very big responsibility, while the

government’s role was seen as more supportive than leading (some responsibility rather than a very big

responsibility).

There is a strong relationship between good Health and Safety leadership in the workplace and workers’

attitudes and behaviours.

WORKERS

33%

EMPLOYERS

50%

WORKERS

84%

EMPLOYERS

86%

169


EXPRESSED THE ATTITUDE THAT THEIR IMMEDIATE BOSS / THEIR BUSINESS WAS DRIVEN BY A GENUINE CONCERN FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE WORKERS

Overall, workers and employers in the high-risk sectors were positive about the leadership shown by their

immediate bosses/throughout their business. One area where leadership was weaker across all sectors was in

relation to praising or rewarding positive Health and Safety behaviour; just 45% of workers and 65% of

employers agreed that this occurred.

Responsive dialogue, where everyone in the business can discuss safety issues openly and there is a shared

determination to ensure the workplace is safe, also has a very strong influence on workplace Health and Safety.


FELT THAT THINGS THAT PUT HEALTH AND SAFETY AT RISK WERE DISCUSSED IN AN OPEN AND HELPFUL WAY (AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME)

Both workers and employers expressed generally favourable opinions about their workplaces or businesses

across a number of indicators. However, shared determination from the boss down was less evident to workers

than other aspects of responsive dialogue, while nearly one in five workers suggested that sometimes their boss

turned a blind eye to a worker taking a short cut or risk.

Positive perceptions of responsive dialogue in a workplace should flow through to positive behaviours in terms

of consistent reporting of hazards, near misses and serious harm incidents.


BELIEVED THAT WORKERS REPORTED HAZARDS, NEAR MISSES AND ACCIDENTS TO BOSSES OR SUPERVISORS AT LEAST MOST OF THE TIME

This result suggests that there is a significant level of under-reporting, particularly as just 23% of workers and

29% of employers believed this behaviour happened all the time.

WORKERS

76%

EMPLOYERS

88%

WORKERS

74%

EMPLOYERS

89%

WORKERS

65%

EMPLOYERS

74%

170

Another very important factor leading to safer workplaces is having formal avenues in place (for example,

meetings, regular formal audits) to ensure safety issues are not overlooked.

45% OF WORKERS HAD RECEIVED FORMAL HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHILE 41% OF EMPLOYERS HAD PROVIDED FORMAL TRAINING TO AT LEAST HALF

THEIR STAFF IN THIS TIMEFRAME

Nearly a quarter of workers in the four high-risk sectors had never had formal Health and Safety training.

Over four in five workers indicated that their workplace had formal structures in place, with the most common

being Health and Safety as an agenda item at regular team meetings, or regular meetings focused on Health and

Safety.

Additional comments: Workplace Health and Safety in context

The Forestry sector is leading the way currently in terms of working to ingrain a Health and Safety culture into

the workplace. This seems most evident in the area of responsive dialogue, where Forestry workers and

employers were more likely to indicate there was a concern for safety from the top down and that information

about hazards, serious harm incidents and near misses was reported throughout the workplace.

When the responses of those workers who had experienced an injury or illness through work in the past 12

months were compared with the responses of workers who had not, the findings support the importance of a

good workplace culture in creating safer workplaces. Workers who had experienced harm were significantly less

likely to provide positive ratings of their workplaces across most of the leadership and responsive dialogue

attributes tested.

There is a disparity between the responses of workers and employers in many areas, with employers having a

more positive view than workers.

10.2 KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOURS AROUND OF RISK

It is important that workers appreciate the risk in their work, that they understand how to mitigate risk and that

they behave appropriately to manage risk.

ONLY 17% OF WORKERS AND 6% OF EMPLOYERS FELT THERE WAS AT LEAST A MODERATE RISK THAT AN INCIDENT COULD OCCUR IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS WHERE THEY OR A

WORKMATE/ SOMEONE WORKING FOR THEIR BUSINESS COULD BE SERIOUSLY HURT AT WORK

Despite over half of workers and employers being aware that the industry they worked in posed a higher than

average risk to Health and Safety, only a minority of workers (17%) and a very small minority of employers (6%)

WORKERS

45%

EMPLOYERS

41%

WORKERS

17%

EMPLOYERS

6%

171

felt there was even a moderate risk of serious injury occurring at their workplace. The great majority of workers

(94%) indicated they felt safe at work and expressed confidence in their knowledge and skills to keep themselves

safe (92%) and, to a lesser extent, to avoid long-term health problems from work (81%).

92% OF WORKERS WERE CONFIDENT THEY HAD THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO KEEP THEMSELVES SAFE AT WORK AND 81% WERE CONFIDENT THEY HAD THE KNOWLEDGE AND

SKILLS TO AVOID LONG-TERM HEALTH PROBLEMS THROUGH WORK.

Almost all workers and employers were able to identify some of the most common threats to Health and Safety

in their industries. Both workers (84%) and employers (89%) felt that workers had the tools and equipment

needed to do their jobs safely. While 84% of employers felt that workers and supervisors had the information

needed to work safely, workers were less inclined to agree that they were told everything they needed to know

to do their jobs safely (67%).

Almost all (92%) workers were confident in their own ability to keep safe and healthy at work. However they

were less confident about knowing their legal responsibilities as workers (63% confident) and legal rights

regarding Health and Safety in the workplace (65% confident).

Sixty-seven percent of employers were confident they were fully aware of their Health and Safety obligations

and 62% were confident they knew how to comply with these obligations.


WERE CONFIDENT THEY WERE FULLY AWARE OF THEIR LEGAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OBLIGATIONS

Despite seeing little risk of a serious harm incident occurring to them or a workmate/in their business, despite

the great majority of workers being confident that they had the knowledge and skills to keep themselves safe,

and despite the great majority of workers actually feeling safe while at work, a number of risky behaviours

occurred with some frequency (from time to time or more often) in many workplaces.

The most common behaviours across sectors were workers working while sick or injured or when they were

overtired. However, making a mistake through being careless or taking a risk or short cut on purpose to save

time were also occasional or frequent behaviours in many workplaces.


INDICATED THAT MISTAKES WERE SOMETIMES OR FREQUENTLY MADE IN THEIR WORKPLACE/BUSINESS BY WORKERS BEING CARELESS OR NOT HAVING THEIR MINDS ON THE

JOB

Taking appropriate preventative action helps reduce the risk of incidents or their impact if they do occur.

WORKERS

92% 81%

WORKERS

63%

EMPLOYERS

67%

WORKERS

43%

EMPLOYERS

38%

172

For the five preventative actions tested, almost all employers and the great majority of workers indicated that

these actions were taken most or all of the time. However, a significantly reduced proportion stated these

actions were taken all of the time. For example, just 45% of workers and 48% of employers stated that personal

protective gear was used when it should be all the time.


INDICATED THAT PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT WAS USED WHEN IT SHOULD BE ALL OF THE TIME.

After considering a list of serious harms (as outlined in the Employment Act 1992), 22% of workers indicated

that they had experienced a serious harm issue at work in the past 12 months, while 28% of employers indicated

that someone working for their business had experienced a serious harm issue/incident.


HAD EXPERIENCED A SERIOUS HARM ISSUE/INCIDENT IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

These percentages are higher than official statistics and must be treated with due caution as they are based on

perceptions of serious harm. However, they provide confirmation that a level of under-reporting exists,

particularly with respect to health-related issues. For example, the harms most commonly cited by workers were

stress related and mental illnesses, and health problems resulting in severe temporary damage or temporary

severe illness. On the other hand, employers identified the most prevalent harms as lacerations, eye injuries and

bone fractures.

When a serious harm incident or near miss occurs in the workplace, a vital aspect of preventing a reoccurrence

is appropriate reporting and recording of these incidents.

SERIOUS HARM INCIDENTS WERE RECORDED IN 37% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY WORKERS AND IN 57% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY EMPLOYERS

The 22% of workers who had experienced serious harm indicated that the issue/incident had been reported to

management and/or workers in 45% of cases and recorded in a register in 37% of cases. Among employers

whose businesses had experienced a serious harm incident, the most recent incident had been recorded in 57%

of cases (and investigated in 31% of cases).

WORKERS

45%

EMPLOYERS

48%

WORKERS

22%

EMPLOYERS

28%

WORKERS

37%

EMPLOYERS

57%

173

Thirty percent of workers and 28% of businesses had experienced a near miss incident where someone could

have been seriously hurt in the past 12 months.

NEAR MISS INCIDENTS WERE RECORDED IN 31% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY WORKERS AND IN 51% OF THE CASES MENTIONED BY EMPLOYERS

Recording of the most recent near miss incidents in a register had taken place for 31% of the workers in the

survey who had experienced a near miss and for 51% of the businesses. Eighteen percent of the workers who

had experienced a near miss had not told anyone about it.

Compared with actions taken when incidents or near misses occurred, almost without exception, appropriate

action was felt to have been taken by both workers and employers when a new hazard had been noticed. In

other words, new hazards could be being dealt with more effectively than near misses and particularly, harm

incidents.

WORKERS

31%

EMPLOYERS

51%

174

10.3 SEGMENTATION

Segmentation analysis identified five segments of workers and five similar segments for employers as follows:

Segmenting workers and employers (rather than applying a ‘one size fits all’ approach) will help ensure

communications more effectively address the motivations of these segments and increase the likelihood of

effecting change.

WORKERS EMPLOYERS

PROACTIVE GUARDIAN


Strong and uncompromising advocates of health and safety



Value health and safety and try to abide by it, but sometimes rules go a bit too far – common sense can be applied


DUTIFUL)







TICK THE BOX


Less positive emotional engagement with health and safety, don’t think about it much

and don’t really know much about it

More casual emotional engagement with health and safety than preceding segments, will do enough to be able to tick the box in terms of compliance but not much more

RESISTING/UNENGAGED



tell them this. The whole health and safety thing is frustrating: there are too many rules, it’s unrealistic to follow all of them and they


Relatively poor attitudes to health and safety due to a lack of engagement (rather than frustration or negativity with the rules


MO

RE

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY

LESS

PO

SITI

VE

ATT

ITU

DES

AB

OU

T H

EALT

H &

SA

FETY



175

10.4 COMMUNICATIONS

Workers across the four high-risk sectors mainly looked to their immediate boss for advice about Health and

Safety (45%) or to a Health and Safety rep at their own workplace (33%), while for employers a government

agency (mentioned by 49%), an industry organisation (40%) or a Health and Safety consultant (36%) were

perceived as the best sources of advice.

Awareness of the campaigns tested in this benchmark was at a good level with the exception of the Safe Use of

Machinery Campaign in Manufacturing. The proportion certain they had seen each campaign was as follows:

In Agriculture, 54% of workers and 56% of employers were certain they had noticed the Quad Bike

Campaign

In Construction, 31% of workers and 46% of employers were certain they had noticed the Doing Nothing

is not an Option Campaign

In Forestry, 39% of workers and 57% of employers were certain they had noticed the Safer Forest

Harvesting Campaign

In Manufacturing, just 5% of workers and 9% of employers were certain they had noticed the Safe Use of

Machinery Campaign

In Commercial Fishing, 43% of workers and 65% of employers were certain they had noticed the FishSafe

Campaign.

The research shows a relationship between awareness of a campaign and some of the indicators of positive

attitudes and behaviours (however, this cannot be read as cause and effect as those more attuned to Health and

Safety might notice campaigns or those who notice campaigns might become more attuned to Health and

Safety).

10.5 AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF WORKSAFE NZ

A respected and trusted work safety authority, known to workers and employers, is an important influence in

workplace Health and Safety.


FELT THEY KNEW AT LEAST QUITE A LOT OR A LOT ABOUT WORKSAFE NZ

Overall, 83% of workers and 90% of employers had heard of WorkSafe NZ. While awareness was high,

knowledge was quite limited with most workers and employers having simply heard of WorkSafe NZ and having

no knowledge or just professing to know a little bit about this organisation.

WORKERS

14%

EMPLOYERS

22%

176

JUST UNDER HALF OF WORKERS (45%) KNEW THAT THEY COULD GET INFORMATION OR ADVICE ON HEALTH

AND SAFETY FROM WORKSAFE NZ.

A third of workers and 41% of employers had had contact with WorkSafe NZ in the past 12 months,

predominantly through seeing materials or information WorkSafe NZ had produced. Seven percent of workers

and 18% of employers had visited the WorkSafe NZ website.

WORKERS

45%

177

11. APPENDIX III:

WORKERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

178

11 APPENDIX III: WORKERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

12. APPENDIX IV:

EMPLOYERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

199

12 APPENDIX IV: EMPLOYERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

Date post:	11-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	1 times

Health and Safety Attitudes and Behaviours in the New ... · To put attitudes to Health and Safety...

Documents